Wakilii

Tororo Cement Company Limited v Frokina International Limited (Civil Appeal No. 21 of 2000)

Court of Appeal · [2001] UGCA 60 · 2001 Appeal Dismissed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Appeal from an interlocutory ruling of the High Court overruling a preliminary objection that the plaint disclosed no cause of action
Decision
Appeal dismissed with costs; ruling that the plaint disclosed a cause of action 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, holding that the plaint disclosed a cause of action. Applying the three-element test in Auto Garage v Motokov (No.3) — that the plaintiff enjoyed a right, that the right was violated, and that the defendant is liable — the court found paragraphs 4, 5 and 7 of the plaint sufficiently pleaded the violation of the respondent's property right and gave adequate particulars of negligence and damage. Tabulation of particulars was a matter of form, not a ground for rejection. Any deficiency could be cured by an application for further and better particulars under Order 6 rule 3. Objection for lack of particulars requires an inherent defect, not a mere imperfection of form.

Outcome

Appeal dismissed with costs; ruling that the plaint disclosed a cause of action upheld

Facts

By a plaint dated 15 October 1999, the respondent, Frokina International Limited, sued the appellant, Tororo Cement Company Limited, in negligence. The respondent claimed that on 18 August 1999 the appellant's truck and trailer rammed into its premises on Plot M.587, Nakivubo View, extensively destroying its doors and walls. The respondent sought a liquidated sum of Shs. 6,248,738 as the estimated cost of repairs, plus general damages, loss of rental income and costs. The appellant denied the claims in its written statement of defence. At the commencement of the hearing, counsel for the appellant raised a preliminary objection under Order 7 rule 11(a) of the Civil Procedure Rules, contending that the plaint failed to disclose a cause of action because it did not give particulars of negligence. The trial judge (Mugamba, Ag. J.) overruled the objection, holding that the sufficiency of particulars was a matter to be visited at the hearing of evidence. The appellant appealed to the Court of Appeal.

Issues

  1. Whether the plaint disclosed a cause of action.
  2. Whether, once negligence was pleaded, the particulars of the alleged negligence had to be set out in the pleadings and their absence rendered the plaint liable to rejection.

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed.
  • Costs of the appeal to the respondent.

Rules and key headnotes

Pleadings — Cause of Action — Test for Disclosure
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 a cause of action is disclosed and any defect or omission can be cured by amendment.
Pleadings — Meaning of 'Disclose' — Cause of Action
The word 'disclose' in Order 7 rule 11(a) is not a term of art and simply means to expose, make known or reveal; a plaint may disclose a cause of action even though it omits some fact which the rules require it to contain and which must be pleaded before the plaintiff can succeed.
Negligence — Particulars of Negligence in Pleadings
Where negligence is pleaded, the plaint should state the facts founding the duty owed to the plaintiff, the precise breach of that duty, and the particulars of damage sustained; however it is not always necessary to tabulate the particulars, and objection for lack of particulars lies only where there is an inherent defect apparent on the face of the pleading, not a mere imperfection or defect in form.
Pleadings — Further and Better Particulars — Order 6 rule 3
Where a cause of action is disclosed but the pleading lacks particulars, the proper remedy of a defendant is to apply for a further and better statement or further and better particulars under Order 6 rule 3 of the Civil Procedure Rules, rather than to seek rejection of the plaint.

Legislation cited (3)

Cases cited (6)

  • Cotter vs Attorney General for Kenya (1938) 5 E.A.C.A. 18
  • Auto Garage vs Motokov (No.3) (1971) E.A. 514
  • Cooke v Gull LR.8 E.P. p.116
  • Read Vs Brown 22 Q.B.D. p.131
  • Heaven Vs Pender (1883) 11 Q.B.D. at 507
  • Nurdin Ali Devji and Others Vs Meghji Co and Others (1953) E.A.C.A. 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 No. 21 of 2000) [2001] UGCA 60 (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.