Wakilii

UNICOF Ltd v Interfreight Forwarders (Civl Suit No. 912 of 1996)

High Court · [1998] UGHC 7 · 1998 Plaint Struck Out AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
First instance civil suit for recovery under insurance subrogation
Decision
Plaint struck out as incompetent for failure to comply with Civil Procedure Rules

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 High Court struck out the plaintiff's subrogation claim for non-compliance with the Civil Procedure Rules. The plaintiff failed to annex the insurance policy and certificate of insurance to the plaint as required by Order 7 Rules 14 and 15. A Notice to Admit Documents filed under Order 11 Rules 2 and 3 almost a year after filing the suit could not cure this procedural defect. Without the policy and certificate, no case under the doctrine of subrogation could be established.

Outcome

Plaint struck out as incompetent for failure to comply with Civil Procedure Rules

Facts

UNICOF Ltd brought an action under the insurance doctrine of subrogation claiming US $86,223.91 from Interfreight Forwarders (U) Ltd. The plaintiff claimed it was acting for the benefit of its insurers who had paid the plaintiff for the loss of 600 bags of Uganda Robust Coffee. The plaint stated that the plaintiff would produce documents evidencing payment at the hearing and relied on a subrogation form dated 16 September 1996. The suit was filed on 17 October 1996. On 14 November 1997, almost a year later, the plaintiff filed a Notice to Admit Documents under Order 11 Rules 2 and 3, accompanying it with various documents including the insurance policy and certificate. At the commencement of the hearing, the defendant raised preliminary objections that the insurance policy and certificate had not been annexed to the plaint as required by Order 7 Rules 14 and 15.

Issues

  1. Whether the plaintiff complied with Order 7 Rules 14 and 15 of the Civil Procedure Rules by failing to annex the insurance policy and certificate of insurance to the plaint.
  2. Whether a Notice to Admit Documents under Order 11 Rules 2 and 3 can cure non-compliance with Order 7 Rules 14 and 15.
  3. Whether the plaint should be struck out for failure to attach essential documents required to prove subrogation.

Orders

  • Preliminary objection upheld.
  • Oral application to annex documents to the plaint disallowed.
  • Plaint struck out as being incompetent.
  • Costs awarded to the defendant.

Rules and key headnotes

Civil Procedure — Pleadings — Documents to be Annexed to Plaint — Order 7 Rules 14 and 15
Where a plaintiff sues upon a document in his possession or power, he must produce it in court when the plaint is presented and annex it or a copy thereof to the plaint; where he relies on other documents as evidence in support of his claim, he must enter such documents in a list annexed to the plaint.
Civil Procedure — Notice to Admit Documents — Distinction from Documents to be Annexed to Plaint
A Notice to Admit Documents under Order 11 Rules 2 and 3 is intended to narrow issues at any stage of the suit and cannot cure non-compliance with Order 7 Rules 14 and 15 which govern procedure at the inception of the case and warn the opposing party of what documents to expect.
Civil Procedure — Consequence of Non-Compliance with Order 7 Rule 14 — Plaint Struck Out
A document which ought to be produced in court when the plaint is presented or entered in a list annexed to the plaint, and which is not produced or entered accordingly, shall not without leave of the court be received in evidence on behalf of the plaintiff at the hearing; failure to comply takes the opposing party by surprise.
Insurance — Subrogation — Proof of Insurance Policy Required
For a claim in subrogation to succeed, proof of the insurance policy as well as proof of payment by the insurer to the insured must be made; in the absence of the policy of insurance and certificate of insurance to be relied on for subrogation, no case can be brought out under the doctrine of subrogation.

Legislation cited (6)

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

UNICOF Ltd v Interfreight Forwarders (Civl Suit No. 912 of 1996) [1998] UGHC 7 (30 September 1998)
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.