Wakilii

Translink (U) Ltd v Sofitra Cargo Services Ltd and Ors (HCT-00-CC-CS 561 of 2006)

High Court · [2007] UGCOMMC 106 · 2007 Preliminary Objection Dismissed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Ruling on preliminary objections to jurisdiction and disclosure of cause of action raised by 2nd and 3rd defendants in a commercial suit for recovery of damages
Decision
Preliminary objections dismissed; plaintiff granted leave to amend plaint; matter to proceed to hearing on merits

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

Held that preliminary objections to jurisdiction and disclosure of cause of action cannot be disposed of without ascertaining facts and are matters for scheduling conference as points of disagreement. The Court has territorial and subject matter jurisdiction based on documents showing goods in transit to Kampala. The plaint discloses a cause of action showing the plaintiff enjoyed a right that was violated, though it requires amendment to clarify whether defendants are jointly or severally liable. Preliminary objections overruled; plaintiff granted leave to amend plaint within 14 days.

Outcome

Preliminary objections dismissed; plaintiff granted leave to amend plaint; matter to proceed to hearing on merits

Facts

The plaintiff company sued three defendant companies (all bearing the name Sofitra but incorporated in different jurisdictions - Uganda/DRC, Kenya, and DRC/Kenya/Uganda) to recover USD 909,522.56 for breach of contract. The defendants were engaged in clearing, forwarding, shipping and transport businesses. At a scheduling conference, the 2nd and 3rd defendants raised preliminary objections that the court lacked jurisdiction and that the plaint disclosed no cause of action. The defendants argued the plaint did not specify where the contract was made or to be performed, and did not indicate which defendant was responsible for which alleged breach. The plaintiff claimed that since 2001, it had contracted with the defendants for clearing, transporting and delivering containers of merchandise, some of which were damaged, delayed or unaccounted for. Supporting documents showed goods were in transit to Kampala via Mombasa.

Issues

  1. Whether the Court has jurisdiction to hear and determine the suit against the 2nd and 3rd defendants
  2. Whether the plaint discloses a cause of action against the 2nd and 3rd defendants

Orders

  • Preliminary objections overruled.
  • Plaintiff granted leave to amend the Amended plaint within 14 working days from the date of this order.
  • Suit to be set down for hearing on its merits.
  • Costs attendant to the amendment, if any, to be met by the plaintiff in any event.
  • Hearing fixed for 20 March 2008 at 9 a.m.

Rules and key headnotes

Civil Procedure - Preliminary Objections - Nature and Requirements
A preliminary objection consists of a point of law which has been pleaded or arises by clear implication out of pleadings, and which if argued as a preliminary point may dispose of the suit. It is in the nature of a demurrer and raises a pure point of law argued on the assumption that all facts pleaded by the other side are correct. It cannot be raised if any fact has to be ascertained or if what is sought is the exercise of judicial discretion.
Civil Procedure - Jurisdiction - Territorial Jurisdiction in Contract Matters
Under section 15 of the Civil Procedure Act, a cause of action arises at the place where the contract was made, the place where the contract was to be performed or performance completed, or the place where money to which the suit relates was expressly or impliedly payable. Where documents supporting the claim show the last destination and place of performance, the court is presumptively seized with territorial and subject matter jurisdiction, and the burden is on the party contending otherwise to rebut that presumption.
Civil Procedure - Pleadings - Disclosure of Cause of Action
Before rejecting a plaint for non-disclosure of a cause of action, the court must be satisfied that the case as presented is unmaintainable or inarguable. If a plaint shows that the plaintiff enjoyed a right, that the right has been violated and the defendant is liable, then a cause of action has been disclosed and any omission or defect may be put right by amendment.
Civil Procedure - Pleadings - Amendment Where Joint or Several Liability Not Specified
Where a plaint discloses that the plaintiff enjoyed a right which was violated and that defendants are liable, but fails to specify whether defendants are jointly or severally liable or the role of each defendant, this is a curable omission that warrants leave to amend rather than dismissal of the suit, unless the plaintiff opts not to remedy it.

Legislation cited (2)

Cases cited (4)

  • Mukisa Biscuit Manufacturing Co Ltd v West End Distributors Ltd [1969] EA 696
  • NAS Airport Services Ltd v Attorney General of Kenya [1959] EA 53
  • Interfreight Forwarders (U) Ltd v EADB [1994-95] HCB 54
  • Auto Garage v Motokov (No 3) [1971] EA 514

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Translink (U) Ltd v Sofitra Cargo Services Ltd and Ors (HCT-00-CC-CS 561 of 2006) [2007] UGCommC 106 (17 December 2007)
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.