Qn.

2
What are interrogatories? Discuss with reference to decided case.

Interrogatories are questions addressed to an opposing party in the action, aimed at

discovery of facts1. The power of Court to administer interrogatories is derived from 2 and
from the Government Proceedings Act3. The essential requirements for proper
interrogatories are that they should;

(i) Relate to a matter in question between the parties and;

(ii) Be necessary either for disposing fairly of the matter or for saving costs

It is entirely in the discretion of the judge as to whether an interrogatory will be allowed or

disallowed.
“in any suit the plaintiff or the defendant may apply to the court within twenty-one days
from the date of the last reply or rejoinder referred to in Order VIII, rule 18(5) of these
rules for leave to deliver interrogatories and discoveries in writing for the examination
of
the opposite parties, or any one or more of such parties and such interrogatories when
delivered shall have a note at the foot thereof which of such interrogatories each of the
person is required to answer.” 4
The requirement that interrogatories when delivered shall have a note at foot stating which
parties are required to answer which interrogatories is mandatory and as matter of practice,
such note should always appear on the draft submitted to the court. D’Souza Vs Ferrao5.
Any order of court to issue interrogatories shall direct by what officer of the Government
the interrogatories are to be answered.6

Procedure.
No particular specific time is specified in rules for administering interrogatories, but it is
clear that no useful purpose would be served if they were issued before close of pleadings,
or before discovery, service of request for further and better particulars, or notices to admit
facts, which might be expected to yield the kind of information sought in interrogatories.

1
Musa Ssekaana, Civil Procedure Law & Practice in Uganda, Chapter 14
2
S.22 of the Civil Procedure Act
3
S.22
4
O.10 r 1, Civil Procedure Rules
5
(1959) EA 1000
6
S. 22(3) of the Government Proceedings Act.
Consequently, the application for leave to serve interrogatories should be made at
reasonable time before the trial is likely to come on. Interrogatories shall be in form 2 of
appendix B of Civil Procedure Act with such variations as circumstances may require7

Guidelines
There are no rigid rules for determining when leave will or will not be granted to
administer interrogatories. Much depends upon the circumstances of the individual case.
However, there are a number of guidelines which have been developed and which will be
followed. These guidelines may be categorised under the following heads8
Interrogatories must ‘relate to any matter in question’ between parties. In Marriott Vs
Chamberlain9, Lord Esher MR attempted to explain the meaning of relevance in this
context;
“the right to interrogate is not confined to facts directly in issue, but extend to any facts
the existence or non-existence of which is relevant to the existence or non-existence of
the facts directly in issue.”
There are three limits to the general rule regarding Relevance;
(i) Interrogatories relevant only to the credibility of witness will be disallowed.
(ii) Interrogatories may be sought only as to matters relevant to the present action,
questions, that are relevant not to the present action but to other or future actions
should be disallowed.
(iii) ‘Fishing’ interrogatories are not allowed
Rules 2 & 310 may be regarded as aspects of the same principle and indeed the courts
have treated them as such, ‘Fishing’ was defined by Lord Esher MR in Hennesey Vs
Wright (number 2)11
“The moment it appears that questions are asked and answers insisted upon in order to
enable the party to see if he can find a case, either complaint or defence of which at
present he knows nothing, and which will be a different case from that which he now
makes, the rule against ‘fishing’ interrogatories applies.”

7
. O.1O r 4, Civil Procedure Rules S.I-71

8
Refer to footnote 27
9
(1886) 17 QBD 154 at 163
10
Civil Procedure Rules
11
(1888) 24 QBD 445 at 448’
 And according to Atkins’ Court Forms12, fishing interrogatories include interrogatories
designed to try to establish a cause of action or defence not pleaded, or a new cause of
action against a third party (for example, whether the interrogated party was acting as
agent for an undisclosed principal).

In the case of Hon Gerald Kafureeka Karuhanga Vs The Attorney General and 2 Ors
[ Misc Cause No. 060 of 2015] while emphasizing that interrogatories cannot be and
should not be used as a fishing expedition, court had this to say;
“…It is trite law that court will deny discovery if the party is using it as a fishing
expedition to ascertain information for the purpose of starting an action or developing a
defence. A court is responsible for protecting against the unreasonable investigation into
a party’s affairs and must deny discovery if it is intended to annoy, embarrass, oppress
or injure the parties or the witnesses who will be subjected to it. A court will stop this
discovery when used in bad faith. I think this is such a case.”
Furthermore, while dismissing the application on ground inter alia that it was a fishing
expedition, court added that;

“In a nutshell, the common feature of an abuse is in the improper use of the judicial
process by a party in litigation. From the facts of this case, this is a fishing expedition
because without a suit before this court for determination, there is no way this kind of
application can be competent before the court. From the facts of this case, this is a
fishing expedition because without a suit before this court for determination, there is
no way this kind of application can be competent before the court.”
On what amounts to a fishing expedition I will refer to the case of Gale Vs Denman
Picture Houses Ltd[ [1930] KB 588, 590 ] per lord, Scrutton L. J relied upon by the
respondent wherein it was held inter alia thus
“A plaintiff who issues a writ must be taken to know what his case is. If he merely issues
a writ on the chance of making a case he is issuing what used to be called a “fishing bill”
to try to find out whether he has a case or not. That kind of proceeding is not to be
encouraged. For a plaintiff after issuing his writ but before delivering his statement of
claim to say, “show me the documents which may be relevant so that I may see whether I
have a case or not” is most undesirable proceeding.”

12
(Volume 21(1) (1996 issue) 515
 I agree therefore that this application is a fishing expedition which cannot be allowed by
this court
The same principle was enunciated in the case of Patricia Mutesi Vs Attorney
General13

(i) Facts
Interrogatories are for facts, so they will be disallowed;
(a) Where they call upon the interrogated party to express an opinion or
something;
(b) Where they are aimed at discovering the evidence available to the other side;
they are not intended to provide a substitute for evidence Aggarwal Vs
Official Receiver 14
(c) Where they are aimed at discovering the contents of an existing document or
as to what documents a party has or had in his possession or control.
(ii) Necessity
Interrogatories may be administered only where they are necessary for the disposing
fairly of the action or for saving costs.
Interrogatories will not normally be necessary for saving costs or for disposing fairly of
the action if witnesses are likely to be called at trial to give evidence on the same
matters. This rule applies particularly to running down cases.
In Griebart Vs Morris15, Scrutton Lj Said;
“In most accident cases, both parties are able to call witnesses, and therefore to
interrogate upon small questions of fact relating to the details of the accident
cannot
be necessary for the fair trial and interrogatories should not be allowed.”
In that case, interrogatories were allowed because of the special circumstances that the
plaintiff had suffered head injuries in road accident to which there were no independent
witnesses, and as she had lost her memory, she would have been unable to give useful
evidence at the trial. The driver of the car which had run the plaintiff down could
therefore be interrogated as to the facts of the accident.
(iii) Other exclusions

13
Misc. App No. 0912 of 2016(Arising from Miscellaneous Cause No. 0241 of 2016)
14
(1967) EA 585
15
(1920) 1 KB 659 at 666
In Griebart Vs Morris, Bankes Lj said that interrogatories have two legitimate purposes,
one, to obtain an admission and thus support the interrogating party’s case, and the other to
destroy the opponent’s case. Therefore, interrogatories which support the case of the
opponent and not that of the interrogating party will generally be disallowed.
In a certain case, a claim for damages for seduction of the plaintiff’s daughter the following
interrogatory was addressed to the defendant. Hooton Vs Dalby 16
Do you allege that the carnal knowledge has been had of the said daughter by any male
person or persons other than yourself? If yes, give the name and address of each of such
person respectively.
The ground was disallowed on the basis, inter alia; that it was directed to the facts which
the defendant would use to support his defence that he was not the father of the girls’ child.
Oppressive interrogatories, such as those which;
(a) Exceed the legitimate requirements of the particular occasion White and Credit
Reform Associates 17
(b) Are not formulated with precision and clarity, or are prolix Atkins Court Forms18
(c) Place on the interrogated party a burden out of all proportion to the benefit gained for
example, by requiring an unreasonable amount of research Det Danske Hedel Skabet
Vs KDM International PLC19
(d) Ask for details of the interrogated party’s secret manufacturing processes Ashworth
Vs Roberts 20
(e) Seek to obtain admissions seriatim of all the statements in the pleading of the
interrogated party are, disallowed.

(iv) Examples of allowable interrogatories

As previously emphasized, the granting of leave to serve interrogatories is entirely in the
discretion of the court in each case and there is no right to administer interrogatories
Aggarwal Vs Official Receiver and accordingly there is no finite list of allowable or
prohibited interrogatories. However, the following are some examples of interrogatories,
which have been allowed;

16
(1907) 2 KB 18
17
(1905) 1KB 653
18
Supra
19
(1994) 2 Lloyds Rep 534
20
(1890) 45 Chd 623
Asking (in a slander action) whether the words complained of were spoken Dalgleish Vs
Lowther 21
(a) Asking for the name of the publisher of a defendant newspaper in a libel action
Robinson Vs Chokolingo 22
(b) Asking for figure of the calculation of a newspaper in a libel action, where quantum
of damages was in issue23
(c) Asking whether (in an action for breach of copyright) the product in question had
been copied from the plaintiff’s product.24
(d) Asking whether the defendant was in possession of the vehicle by the time it was
involved in an accident.
(e) Asking in order to prove the handwriting of a disputed letter, whether the
interrogated party was the writer of another letter Johns Vs Richards25
(f) Asking for the noise levels in a factory, in an industrial deafness case Kirking Vs
British Rail Engineering Ltd 26
(g) Asking whether contractual documents had been signed by the interrogated party’s
agent. 27

(v) Answers
Interrogatories are answered by affidavits O. 10 r 8 and are binding on the
interrogated party in the sense that an answer is intended to be an admission by
the party who makes it, or at any rate a statement by which in ordinary
circumstances he will be bound. In most cases, answers maybe a simple ‘yes’ or
‘no’ but where explanations are included, they must be unambiguous, precise and
reasonable
If answers provided are sufficient, the interrogating party may seek an order that
the opponent should file a further and better answer and the court under O.1O

21
(1899) 2 QB 590
22
(1970) 10 WIR 407
23
Parnell V Walter (1890) 24 QBD 44

24
Rockwell International Corp V Serk Industries Ltd (1988) FSR

25
(1885) 15 QBD 439
26
(1983) 1WLR 1165
27
Bank of Russia Trade Ltd Vs British Screen Productions Ltd (1930) 2KB 90
R11 may order the latter to answer further, either by way of affidavit or upon oral
examination. Insufficiency of an answer has to be determined by court. Answers
or part answers to interrogatories may be put in evidence at the trial. A party may
object to answering on the ground of privilege; such objection is conclusive
unless the contrary is shown.
Where a party fails to answer interrogatories, the court may dismiss the action or
order the defence to be struck out, as the case may be. There is also a power to
commit a defaulting party to prison for contempt. Before making any of these
orders, the court may make an ‘unless order’ providing the party in default with a
last opportunity to comply.
In submission therefore, interrogatories are very essential but courts should
always safe guard them so that they are not used as ‘FISHING EXPEDITIONS
by litigants.