Haula Dad & Rose (Tanganyika) Ltd. v. Hem Singh, Civ. Case 101-D-68, 8/8/69, Georges C. J.

Haula Dad & Rose (Tanganyika) Ltd. v. Hem Singh, Civ. Case 101-D-68, 8/8/69, Georges C. J.

The plaintiff claimed a sum of money from the defendants for work done ad materials supplied between April, 1965 and October, 1966. The defendants in their defence and counter-claim alleged that the plaint was defective in that it did no specify to whom the services and materials alleged to be supplied were in fact supplied.

            Held: The defendant relied, in support of their argument, on the case of Bruce v. Ordhams Press Ltd. [1936] 1 All E.R. 287. That case was a libel case, and the issue there arose in the following way: The libel did not particularly refer to the plaintiff. It was alleged that it contained an innuendo and that innuendo was pleaded, but it was no-where made clear that the plaintiff was linked with the innuendo. The plaintiff’s argument was that since the plaint contained the general statement that the defendants had published the libel of the plaintiff, then the cause of action had been disclosed, and no particulars could be requested. Scott, L. J., in his judgment, stated that a very clear distinction should be drawn between the statement of material facts which should be pleaded and other matrers which could be the subject of a request for particulars. He was of

the view that the failure to link the innuendo directly with the plaintiff was a failure to state a material fact and that the statement of claim would, therefore, have been demur able under the old system of pleading or be liable to be struck out under the then existing rules. It was not a matter which would justify merely a request for particulars, the granting of which was a matter of discretion. This may well be the case, but it is my view that the plaint now under consideration has not failed to state any material fact. The action is one of contract, and, in my view, the kernel of the contract is the request by the defendants for the performance of the services or the supply of the goods. Once that request is pleaded and performance alleged, then the cause of action is disclosed. It may be that the defendants for the performance of the services or the supply of the goods. Once that request is pleaded and performance alleged, then the cause of action is disclosed. It may be that the defendants can allege that the performance was not in accordance with the request made. It may be also that the defendant may say that the request has not been pleaded extensively enough, and there-forefather particulars of the request would be needed so that the defendant would know what case he had to answer. But once the request is pleaded and the performance thereof alleged, as they are in this case, then the cause of action has, in my view, been disclosed.” Action to proceed to trial on pleading as they are.