[2020] UGCommC 30

[2020] UGCommC 30

The court found that the Written Statement of Defence filed by the Respondent consisted of general and evasive denials, failing to specifically address the allegations in the plaint and lacking particulars or evidence of payments. This contravened the mandatory requirements of Order 6 Rules 8 and 10 of the Civil Procedure Rules, which require specific traverses and substantive answers to allegations. The WSD did not disclose a reasonable answer to the Applicant's claim and was deemed frivolous and vexatious under Order 6 Rule 30(1). Furthermore, the affidavit in reply filed by the Respondent was struck out as incompetent, having been sworn by an officer without executive or managerial...

Citation
[2020] UGCommC 30
Parties
Applicant: MHK Engineering Services (U) Ltd; Respondent: Macdowell Limited
Court
Commercial Court of Uganda
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Judgment Date
18 September 2020
Case Number
Miscellaneous Civil Application No. 825 of 2018
Procedural Posture
Miscellaneous Application / Ruling
Outcome
application_allowed
Judges
Boniface Wamala, J
Legal Topics
Striking Out Defence, Specific Denial Requirements, Evasive Denial, Liquidated Claims, Corporate Affidavit Capacity
Source Language
English
Civil Procedure Commercial and Corporate Striking Out Defence Specific Denial Requirements Evasive Denial Liquidated Claims Corporate Affidavit Capacity

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 5 Authorities cited 12 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

MHK Engineering Services (U) Ltd

Applicant

Macdowell Limited

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Miscellaneous Application / Ruling

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Written Statement of Defence filed by the Defendant/Respondent offends Order 6 Rules 8, 10 and 30 of the Civil Procedure Rules.
  2. 2 Whether the affidavit in reply filed by the Respondent was competent and properly sworn on behalf of the company.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the Written Statement of Defence filed by the Respondent consisted of general and evasive denials, failing to specifically address the allegations in the plaint and lacking particulars or evidence of payments. This contravened the mandatory requirements of Order 6 Rules 8 and 10 of the Civil Procedure Rules, which require specific traverses and substantive answers to allegations. The WSD did not disclose a reasonable answer to the Applicant's claim and was deemed frivolous and vexatious under Order 6 Rule 30(1). Furthermore, the affidavit in reply filed by the Respondent was struck out as incompetent, having been sworn by an officer without executive or managerial...

Court Disposition

application_allowed

Orders

  • The Written Statement of Defence filed by the Defendant in Civil Suit No. 723 of 2018 is struck out for offending Order 6 Rules 8 and 10 of the Civil Procedure Rules.
  • Judgment is entered in the main suit for the Plaintiff against the Defendant for the liquidated sum of UGX 85,206,250.