[2025] UGHCCD 22

## **THE REPUBLIC OF UGANDA IN THE HIGH COURT OF UGANDA AT KAMPALA CIVIL DIVISION MISC. APPLICATION NO. 538 OF 2022 (ARISING OUT OF CIVIL SUIT NO. 233 OF 2022)**

# **TEDDY UWAMAHORO ::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: APPLICANT VERSUS**

**JOHN SENYONYI MBAZIRA :::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: RESPONDENT**

## **BEFORE: HON. JUSTICE SSEKAANA MUSA RULING**

The applicant brought this suit under section 98 of the Civil Procedure Act and Order 7, Rule 11 and 12 of the Civil Procedure Rules seeking for orders that;

- i) The plaint and/ or suit filed in HCCS No. 233 of 2022 be struck out or rejected for not disclosing a cause of action against the Defendant. - ii) The costs of this application and suit be provided for.

The application was supported by grounds stated in the affidavit of Teddy Uwamahoro, the applicant herein; which briefly state that; the respondent filed HCCS No. 233 of 2022; John Senyonyi Mbazira vs Uwamahoro against the applicant where the plaint as presented does not disclose a cause of action. The respondent seeks to recover a sum of Ugx. 500,000,000/= (Uganda Shillings Five Hundred Million only) against the applicant purportedly invested in a business managed by the applicant. However, no business demonstrated in the plaint was mismanaged by the applicant to occasion a loss in that sum.

The plaint as presented does not plead at all that the applicant received a sum of Ugx. 500,000,000/= from the respondent. The applicant further states that in any event, if the respondent invested money in a business that is not named in the plaint and a loss of Ugx. 500,000,000/= was occasioned, that loss was borne by the business and not the respondent.

The applicant further states that there are no pleadings whatsoever pointing to any business in which a sum of Ugx. 500,000,000/= was invested by the respondent and the said business was mismanaged by the applicant to the extent of occasioning the said loss. She therefore stated that the claim of Ugx. 500,000,000/= sought as special damages are not set out and that the suit is frivolous and vexatious and ought to be struck out with costs.

The Applicant was represented by Mr. Walukagga Isaac while the respondent was unrepresented.

The applicant proposed the following issues for determination by this court;

- **1. Whether the plaint as presented by the respondent in HCCS No. 233 of 2022; John Senyonyi vs Teddy Uwamahoro discloses a cause of action against the applicant?** - **2. Whether the purported business contract valued in the sum of Ugx. 500,000,000/= is enforceable pursuant to section 10 (5) of the Contracts Act, 2010?**

### **3. What remedies are the parties entitled to?**

The parties were ordered to file written submissions which were accordingly done by the applicant and these shall be considered together with the pleadings in the determination of this case. However, the respondent did not file any submissions as directed by the court.

#### **Determination**

## *1. Whether the plaint as presented by the respondent in HCCS No. 233 of 2022; John Senyonyi vs Teddy Uwamahoro discloses a cause of action against the applicant?*

Counsel for theapplicant stated that the applicant avers that the plaint as presented discloses no cause of action against her. The respondent seeks recovery of a sum of Ugx. 500,000,000/= against the applicant. It is alleged in the plaint that the money in issue was invested in the business that the applicant run under the guise of carrying the respondent's pregnancy. Counsel stated that the respondent further makes allegations in paragraph 4 (f) and (j) of the plaint that he invested a sum of Ugx. 150,000,000/= in a shoe business for the applicant and the respondent's purported unborn child and settled the applicant's medical bills in the sum of Ugx. 32,000,000/=

Counsel defined a cause of action as per the case of *Kisembo Luke Winyi & Others vs National Forestry Authority Civil Suit No. 383 of 2017 (unreported)* as a factual situation the existence of which entitles one person to obtain from court a remedy against another person. That the phrase has been held from earliest time to include every fact which the defendant would have a right to traverse. A cause of action has been taken to mean that a particular act of the defendant which gives the plaintiff his cause of complaint, or subject matter or grievance founding the action, not merely the technical cause of action. Counsel further relied on the case of *DFCU Bank Limited vs Abubaker Technical Services & General Supplies Ltd Misc. Applic. No 076 of 2022 (unreported)* where it was held that a cause of action entails pleading essential facts constituting the right and its infringement which entitle a person to sue the wrong doer or defaulter or any one liable for it. The court further held that it does not comprise every piece of evidence which is necessary to prove each fact, but every fact which is necessary to be proved.

Counsel further submitted that it was held in *DFCU Bank Limited case (Supra)* that if a plaint does not contain averments of facts sufficient to support every element of a claim, the court upon motion by the opposing party, may strike out the plaint for failure to state a claim for which relief can be granted. Counsel stated that in para. 3.1- 3.9 of the affidavit in support of the application, it is averred that the allegations on the plaint do not disclose any cause of action against the applicant. He stated that the plaint does not demonstrate how the respondent came to invest the said money in a business with the applicant and no business is mentioned. There is no date when this money was invested as alleged and it is a mere allegation that is not supported by any clear pleadings.

He also submitted that the plaint does not make any pleadings to support allegations of giving the money to the applicant. There is no acknowledgement of receipt of the said money nor documentation to support the same. He noted that under paragraph 4 (j) of the plaint, the respondent alleges that he paid for the applicant's medical bills in the sum of Ugx. 32, 000,000/=. However, there is no proof of such receipts evidencing the payments or medical facilities or the payments or medical facilities that the payments were made to.

On the allegations of interest suffered and loan repayments in the sum of Ugx. 24,000,000/= by the respondent under paragraph 4 (l) of the plaint, counsel submitted that there is no such loan document on the pleadings to premise this claim. He therefore submitted that there is no cause of action disclosed by the plaint as presented by the respondent and the plaint should be struck out.

#### *Analysis*

The general rule is that whenever the court is called upon to evaluate and determine, whether or not a plaint raises a reasonable cause of action, the court looks at the plaint and its annexures - *See: Serugo Ismael vs. Kampala City Council & Anor (Constitutional Appeal 2 of 1998) [1999], Kampala Rugby Union Football Club v Capital ventures International Ltd (M. A No. 523/2011; Maximov Oleg Petrovich vs Premchandra Shenoi & Anor[1998]I KALR 52.* It is trite law that where questions of whether a plaint discloses a cause of action arise, the court is obligated to peruse the plaint itself together with its annexures in order to answer this question. *See: Kapeka Coffee Works Ltd vs NPART CACA No. 3 of 2000*. Court does not have to consider any other information save for what is laid out in the plaint to ascertain the cause of action.

A cause of action refers to a group of operative facts giving rise to one or more bases for suing; a factual situation that entitles one person to obtain a remedy in court from another person. A cause of action means the cause of complaint or a right or obligation or a dispute which a court of law would use its adjudicatory or jurisdictional powers to determine and resolve. It also consists of or includes all material facts a plaintiff is saddled with the responsibility of proving if traversed in order to obtain judgment in his/her favour. The Supreme Court defined what a cause of action is in the case of *Major General David Tinyefunza vs. Attorney General Const. Appeal No. 1 of 1997* where the court cited with approval the definition of a case of action by *Mulla on the Indian Code of Civil Procedure, Volume 1, and 14th Edition at page 206*:

*"A cause of action means every fact, which, if traversed, it would be necessary for then plaintiff to prove in order to support his right to a judgment of the court. In other words, it is a bundle of facts which taken with the law applicable to them* *gives the plaintiff a right to relief against the defendant. ... It is, in other words, a bundle of facts, which it is necessary for the plaintiff to prove in order to succeed in the suit. But it has no relation whatever to the defense which may be set up by the defendant, nor does it depend upon the character of the relief prayed for by the plaintiff. It is a media upon which the plaintiff asks the court to arrive at a conclusion in his favour. The cause of action must be antecedent to the institution of the suit."*

The term "reasonable cause of action" on the other hand was defined by **Lord Pearson in the case of Drummond Jackson vs British Medical Association [1970] 1 All England Law Reports page 1094 per Lord Pearson at page 1101**

"*In my opinion the traditional and hitherto accepted view—that the power should only be used in plain and obvious cases—is correct according to the evident intention of the rule for several reasons. ... No exact paraphrase can be given, but I think 'reasonable cause of action' means a cause of action with some chance of success, when (as required by r 19(2)) only the allegations in the pleading are considered. If when those allegations are examined it is found that the alleged cause of action is certain to fail, the statement of claim should be struck out."*

It is a settled position of the law that for a plaintiff to establish a sustainable cause of action in their pleadings, the plaint must show (a) that the plaintiff had a right, (b) that the right was violated or breached, and (c) that the Defendant is liable. *See: Auto Garage vs Motokov [1971] EA 514; Tororo Cement Co Ltd vs Frokina International Ltd Civil Appeal No. 2 of 2001)*

A thorough look at the respondent's plaint shows that his claim against the applicant is for recovery of land and money lost due to fraudulent misrepresentation amounting to Ugx. 500,000,000/= invested in the business run by the applicant in the guise of being pregnant for the plaintiff. However, a look at the averments and attachments does not show any right by the respondent of the land comprised in Kibuga Block 1 Plot 361 at Lugunja for which he seeks to recover. The land sale and purchase agreement in respect of the suit land for which the respondent seeks to recover is in the names of the applicant as the purchaser and the respondent only appears as a witness thereunder. There is no evidence whatsoever of the respondent's financial contribution to the said land and neither is there any proof of ownership by the respondent.

Furthermore, the respondent's allegations of making investment of Ugx. 500,000,000/= to the applicant's business is not supported by any evidence on the court record. Rather, the respondent attaches documents for the company S. J. M Supplies company under which both parties are shareholders and receipts in respect of the said business. Indeed, there is no documentary evidence whatsoever attached to the plaint to show that the applicant received the amount claimed from the respondent for which the applicant is liable to pay.

As stated above, the court is obligated to peruse the plaint itself together with its annexures in order to answer this question. From the above discussion, it is clear that the plaint of the respondent does not disclose a reasonable cause of action from the facts and documents attached to the plaint as against the applicant. Order 7, Rule 11 of the Civil Procedure Rules is very clear that a plaint shall be rejected where it does not disclose a cause of action.

In the circumstances, I find that the plaint as presented in Civil Suit No. 233 of 2022 by the respondent does not disclose a reasonable cause of action against the applicant and is therefore stuck out. Having answered issue 1 in the affirmative, there is no need to delve into other issues as this substantially disposes off the whole suit in the opinion of Court.

This application is therefore allowed but each party shall bear its costs since this a case involving 2 persons involved in sexual relations.

I so order.

*SSEKAANA MUSA JUDGE 14th February 2025*