Wakilii

Turyamureba v Attorney General (Civil Suit 436 of 1989)

High Court · [1990] UGHC 37 · 1990 Application Dismissed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Preliminary application to strike out the Written Statement of Defence for contravening pleading rules
Decision
Application to strike out Written Statement of Defence dismissed

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

An application to strike out a Written Statement of Defence on the ground that it contains general denials and contravenes Order 6 Rules 7 and 9 is misconceived. A defendant is entitled to adopt an entirely negative attitude, putting the plaintiff to strict proof of allegations, and cannot be compelled to make positive assertions in pleadings. The proper remedy where a pleading offends pleading rules is to request further and better particulars, not to strike it out. Application dismissed.

Outcome

Application to strike out Written Statement of Defence dismissed

Facts

The plaintiff filed Civil Suit No. 436 of 1989 against the Attorney General. The defendant was duly served but was absent without reason when the hearing commenced on 2 April 1990. The court permitted the plaintiff to proceed exparte under Order 9 Rule 17(1)(a). Instead of adducing evidence, counsel for the plaintiff orally raised a preliminary application under Order 6 Rules 7 and 9, seeking to strike out the Written Statement of Defence on the ground that it contained omnibus denials contravening the pleading rules. The defendant's Written Statement of Defence contained general denials stating: save as expressly admitted, the defendant denies each and every allegation; and the defendant has no knowledge of the allegations in specified paragraphs and puts the plaintiff to strict proof. Counsel for the plaintiff had given written consent to the late filing of this Written Statement of Defence on 4 August 1989, six months before raising the application to strike it out.

Issues

  1. Whether the Written Statement of Defence filed by the defendant should be struck out for contravening Order 6 Rules 7 and 9 of the Civil Procedure Rules.

Orders

  • Application dismissed.
  • No order as to costs.

Rules and key headnotes

Civil Procedure — Pleadings — Striking Out Defence — General Denials — Defendant's Right to Put Plaintiff to Proof
A defendant is perfectly entitled to adopt an entirely negative attitude in pleading, putting the plaintiff to proof of allegations, and cannot be compelled by an application to strike out the defence to make positive assertions.
Civil Procedure — Pleadings — Striking Out Defence — Proper Remedy for Inadequate Pleadings
Where a defence contains general denials and offends Order 6 Rules 7 and 9, the proper remedy is to request further and better particulars under the Civil Procedure Rules, not to apply to strike out the defence.
Civil Procedure — Pleadings — Application to Strike Out — Timing and Waiver
An application to strike out a pleading ought to be made promptly, long before the hearing date. Where counsel gives written consent to the late filing of a Written Statement of Defence, he cannot later object to its form and seek to have it struck out without explanation for the delay.
Civil Procedure — Pleadings — General Traverse — Acceptance by Ugandan Courts
A defence containing an omnibus traverse in the form 'save as hereinafter expressly admitted, the defendant denies each and every allegation' is common practice from the Attorney General's Chambers and has been accepted, though with some reluctance, by the courts of Uganda.

Legislation cited (7)

Cases cited (11)

  • Esso Petroleum Co. Ltd v South Port Corporation [1956] E.C. 218
  • Kasule v Makerere University [1975] HCB 376
  • Byrd v Naud [1877] 7 Ch.D 287
  • Thorp v Holdsworth [1876] 3 Ch.D. 637
  • Pinson v Lloyds & National Provincial Foreign Bank Ltd [year unknown] 2 All ER 636
  • Habib Javer Manji v Vir Singh [1962] EA 557
  • Chapple v Electrical Trades Union [1961] 3 All ER 612
  • Haward v Bornman [1972] 2 All ER 867
  • Dritoo Vs. West Nile District Administration [1968] page 428
  • Joshi v Uganda Sugar Factory Ltd [1968] EA 570
  • Behangana v Attorney General (HCCS No. 314 of 1987)

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Turyamureba v Attorney General (Civil Suit 436 of 1989) [1990] UGHC 37 (19 April 1990)
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.