You are here:
SAFLII >>
Databases >>
Uganda: Commercial Court >>
2007 >>
[2007] UGCommC 46
[Database Search]
[Name Search]
[Recent Decisions]
[Noteup]
[Help]
Kampala Pharmaceutical Industries Ltd v Safeway Pharmacy Ltd (HCT-00-CC-CS-0743-2005) [2007] UGCommC 46 (28 June 2007)
.RTF of original document
THE REPUBLIC OF UGANDA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF UGANDA HOLDEN AT KAMPALA
COMMERCIAL COURT DIVISION
HCT-00-CC-CS-0743-2005
Kampala Pharmaceutical Industries Ltd PLAINTIFF
VERSUS
Safeway Pharmacy Ltd DEFENDANT
BEFORE: THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE FMS EGONDA-NTENDE
JUDGMENT
1.
The plaintiff brings this action to recover from the defendant special and general damages, interest and costs of this suit. It is
contended for the plaintiff that the defendant sought and was supplied by the plaintiff with various items and quantities of drugs/medicines
from 5th September 2000 to 22nd January 2001. The defendant made part payment leaving a balance of Shs.26,927,000.00 as at 27th March 2001. In spite of several demands by the plaintiff, the defendant failed and or refused to pay the said sum of money.
2.
The defendant was served with summons but failed to file a defence. The plaintiff applied for interlocutory judgment and the setting
down the suit for formal proof. The application did not cite any law under which this matter should be handled. The Registrar obliged
and entered on 14th February 2007 and set down the suit for formal proof. At the hearing for formal proof the plaintiff called one witness and closed
its case.
3.
It is clear to me that much as in the plaint in this case the claim for Shs.26,927,000.00 was referred to as a claim for ‘special
damages’, this was no claim for special damages as such. It is simply a claim for a debt unpaid, which in substance is a liquidated
demand. This claim is not a claim for pecuniary damages. Coupling it with a claim for general damages and then seeking an interlocutory
judgment, which I presume was intended to be under Order 9 Rule 8 of the Civil Procedure Rules, was an error, as only claims for
pecuniary damages only can fall under that rule.
4.
In this regard, reference is made to an earlier decision of this court, in Dembe Trading Enterprises Ltd v Uganda Confidential Ltd and Anor, HCT-00-CC-CS-0612-2006 (unreported), in which it is noted,
‘Order 9 Rule 8 applies, to ‘a plaint drawn with a claim for pecuniary damages only’ or a claim for the detention of goods which is not the case before me. There is a claim for pecuniary damages in this case, but it
is not the only claim in the plaint. There are several other claims for liquidated amounts for which Order 9 rule 6 grants the court
discretion to enter judgment in case the defendant did not file a defence.
The rules do not provide specifically for cases where there is a conjunction of claims for both liquidated demand and pecuniary damages
and the defendant does not file a defence. Is it possible to apply both rules 6 and 8 conjunctively? That is to disaggregate the
claims in the plaint, and apply rule 6 to those claims to which it applies, and apply rule 8, to that part of the claim to which
rule 8 may presumably apply. This may not be possible given the wording of rule 8, which refers to ‘a plaint drawn with a claim
for pecuniary damages only’. Rule 8 appears to be restricted in application to plaints in which there is a claim for pecuniary damages only or for the
detention of goods. If the plaint in question has other claims or has other claims coupled with these claims, it cannot fall within
the operation of rule 8, which is restricted to a plaint a claim for pecuniary damages only, in the context of this suit.’
5.
The entering of an interlocutory judgment in this case was an error, given the joinder of a liquidated claim, even though it was ‘christened’
‘special damages’ with one for pecuniary damages. Much as a hearing proceeded on such a judgment, such a hearing was
in error in too. I accordingly set aside both the interlocutory judgment, and the hearing for formal proof that proceeded upon it.
6.
As there was proof of service, and the defendant did not file a defence, I will enter judgment for the plaintiff, under Order 9 Rule
6 of the Civil Procedure Rules, for the liquidated demand of Shs.26,927,000.00 with interest at 8% per annum from 24th April 2005 to the date of judgment, and thereafter at court rate till payment in full and costs of this suit.
Dated, signed and delivered at Kampala this 28th day of June 2007
FMS Egonda-Ntende
Judge
SAFLII:
|
Terms of Use
|
Feedback
URL: http://www.saflii.org/ug/cases/UGCommC/2007/46.html
