Wakilii

Tororo Cement Company Limited v Frokina International Limited (Civil Appeal 21 of 2000)

Court of Appeal · [2001] UGCA 28 · 2001 Appeal Dismissed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Civil appeal from an interlocutory High Court ruling overruling a preliminary objection that the plaint disclosed no cause of action
Decision
Appeal dismissed; High Court's refusal to reject the plaint upheld

Observed later treatment

No later-treatment classification is recorded for this judgment.

Citator coverage is limited to judgments in the Wakilii corpus and source-matched treatment records. Absence of a signal is not an assertion that the case remains good law.

AI-generated summary. This summary was generated by AI from the full text of the judgment. It may contain errors or omissions—always read the source judgment before relying on it.

Holding

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, upholding the High Court's refusal to reject the plaint. Applying the three elements from Auto Garage v Motokov (No.3) — that the plaintiff enjoyed a right, the right was violated, and the defendant is liable — the court held the plaint disclosed a clear cause of action in negligence, the respondent's property rights having been violated when the appellant's truck rammed its premises. Paragraphs 4, 5 and 7 together gave sufficient particulars of negligence and damage; tabulating particulars under a heading was a matter of form, not a ground for rejection. Where a cause of action exists, a defendant's remedy for inadequate particulars lies in seeking further and better particulars under Order 6 rule 3.

Outcome

Appeal dismissed; High Court's refusal to reject the plaint upheld

Facts

On 18 August 1999 the appellant's truck and trailer rammed into the respondent's premises on plot M.587, Nakivubo View, extensively destroying its doors and walls. The respondent sued the appellant in negligence, seeking a liquidated sum of Shs.6,248,738 as the estimated cost of repairs, together with general damages and costs, alleging that the accident was caused by the negligence of the appellant's driver for whom the appellant was vicariously liable. The appellant denied the claim in its written statement of defence and, at the commencement of the hearing, raised a preliminary objection under Order 7 rule 11(a) of the Civil Procedure Rules, contending that the plaint disclosed no cause of action because it failed to give particulars of negligence. The High Court (Mugamba, Ag.J) overruled the objection, holding that paragraph 4 showed the respondent's premises had been extensively destroyed through the defendant's negligence, and that the question of particulars was a matter for the hearing of evidence. The appellant appealed.

Issues

  1. Whether the plaint disclosed a cause of action in negligence.
  2. Whether failure to set out the particulars of the alleged negligence under a definite heading rendered the plaint liable to rejection.

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed with costs to the respondent.

Rules and key headnotes

Pleadings — Cause of Action — Test for disclosure under Order 7 rule 11(a)
A plaint discloses a cause of action where it shows that the plaintiff enjoyed a right, that the right has been violated, and that the defendant is liable; where all three elements are present any defect or omission may be cured by amendment, but if any element is missing no cause of action exists and no amendment can redeem a nullity.
Pleadings — Meaning of 'disclose' and 'cause of action'
The word 'disclose' is not a term of art and means to expose, make known or reveal; a cause of action means every fact material to be proved to enable the plaintiff to succeed, and a plaint may disclose a cause of action even though it omits some fact the rules require it to contain.
Negligence — Pleading particulars of negligence
A plaint in negligence should state the facts upon which the supposed duty is founded, allege the precise breach complained of, and give particulars of the damage sustained; however, where these are conveyed by the body of the plaint, tabulating particulars under a definite heading is a matter of form and not a sufficient ground for rejection.
Pleadings — Remedy for inadequate particulars — Order 6 rule 3
Where a cause of action is disclosed but the defendant considers the particulars insufficient, the proper remedy is to apply for further and better particulars under Order 6 rule 3; an objection to a plaint on the ground of lack of particulars may only be raised where the fault is an inherent defect apparent on the face of the pleading, something more than a mere imperfection or defect of form.

Legislation cited (3)

Cases cited (6)

  • Getter vs Attorney General for Kenya (1938) 5 E.A.C.A. 18
  • Auto Garage vs Motokov (No.3) (1971) EA 514
  • Cooke v Gull LR. 8 E.P. p.116
  • Read Vs Brown 22 Q.B.D. p.131
  • Heaven Vs Pender (1883) 11 QBD, at 507
  • Nurdin Ali Devji and Others Vs Meghji & Co. and Others (1953) EACA 132

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

The original judgment as reported. Read the original PDF before relying on any passage.

Tororo Cement Company Limited v Frokina International Limited (Civil Appeal 21 of 2000) [2001] UGCA 28 (12 January 2001)
Source: this page presents Wakilii’s issue analysis and metadata for a publicly reported Ugandan judgment. Any AI-generated summary is marked as such. Judgment text is sourced from the Uganda Legal Information Institute (ulii.org). Wakilii is not affiliated with ULII.