[2003] UGHC 65

[2003] UGHC 65

The court held that the plaint, both in its original and proposed amended form, failed to disclose a cause of action because it did not provide sufficient particulars of negligence as required by law. The mere assertion of 'driving recklessly without due regard to other road users' is inadequate and does not amount to particulars of negligence. The doctrine of res ipsa loquitor does not substitute the requirement to plead particulars of negligence. The court further held that the objection based on non-compliance with Rule 8 of the First Schedule to the Commissioner for Oaths (Advocates) Act was merely procedural and did not render the affidavit incurably defective. Consequently, the...

Citation
[2003] UGHC 65
Parties
Plaintiff: Kebirungi Justine; Defendant: M/S Road Tainers Ltd; Defendant: M/S Spedad (U) Ltd; Defendant: Wanyoike Thenge Njunguna
Court
High Court of Uganda
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Judgment Date
1 September 2003
Case Number
Miscellaneous Application No. 285 of 2003
Procedural Posture
Miscellaneous Application / Ruling on Preliminary Objection to Application to Amend Plaint
Outcome
Plaint struck out with costs for failure to disclose a cause of action; plaintiff may file afresh if so advised.
Legal Topics
Pleadings, Amendment of Pleadings, Particulars of Negligence, Cause of Action, Res Ipsa Loquitor
Source Language
English
Civil Procedure Tort Law Pleadings Amendment of Pleadings Particulars of Negligence Cause of Action Res Ipsa Loquitor

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 7 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Kebirungi Justine

Plaintiff

M/S Road Tainers Ltd

Defendant

M/S Spedad (U) Ltd

Defendant

Wanyoike Thenge Njunguna

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Miscellaneous Application / Ruling on Preliminary Objection to Application to Amend Plaint

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the plaint as filed and as proposed to be amended discloses a cause of action by providing sufficient particulars of negligence.
  2. 2 Whether failure to comply with Rule 8 of the First Schedule to the Commissioner for Oaths (Advocates) Act renders the supporting affidavit incurably defective.

Ratio Decidendi

The court held that the plaint, both in its original and proposed amended form, failed to disclose a cause of action because it did not provide sufficient particulars of negligence as required by law. The mere assertion of 'driving recklessly without due regard to other road users' is inadequate and does not amount to particulars of negligence. The doctrine of res ipsa loquitor does not substitute the requirement to plead particulars of negligence. The court further held that the objection based on non-compliance with Rule 8 of the First Schedule to the Commissioner for Oaths (Advocates) Act was merely procedural and did not render the affidavit incurably defective. Consequently, the...

Court Disposition

Plaint struck out with costs for failure to disclose a cause of action; plaintiff may file afresh if so advised.

Orders

  • The plaint (both original and proposed amendment) is struck out with costs.
  • The plaintiff is at liberty to file a fresh suit if she so wishes.