By his motion the plaintiff seeks an order that the defendant do deliver to the plaintiff written particulars of matters in the statement of defence in respect of paragraphs 10-12, 14, 24 and 25. The motion was purported to have been brought under Order 19, rr 6-8 and 23 of the High Court (Civil Procedure) Rules, 1954 (LN 140A).
By his indorsement on the writ of summons, the plaintiff's claim is:
"for ¢10 million damages for (a) libel contained in the draft [p.153] of a press statement made and published by the defendant . . . and (b) wrongful interference with and intermeddling in the plaintiff's right to work and follow his calling as a research scientist and crop development expert."
In his statement of claim, the plaintiff under paragraph 11 set out in full the draft he relied upon as having been falsely and maliciously written and published of the plaintiff by the defendant. In the opening paragraph of the draft it had been alleged that there had been frequent interference from the plaintiff calculated to divide the workers and bring down productivity. It went on to state certain alleged acts of the plaintiff which, according to the draft, were reasons why the plaintiff's "machinations" should be discouraged. It ends with a list of acts by the defendant and which were said to have brought marked improvement to the whole establishment.
In his statement of defence, the defendant did not seek to deny the publication of the draft but said he edited it to ensure that only the truth was presented to the public. According to him, the press release prepared by the committee for the defence of the revolution of the board was an official act and that the contents were true. In effect, the defence amounts to a plea of justification.
It is trite law that particulars of any matter stated in any pleading may be ordered by a court. The object or purpose of an application for particulars is to enable the applicant to know or have a foretaste of the case he anticipates to meet at the trial; that protects the parties from being taken by surprise: see Ejura v Liman [1966] GLR 683 and Spedding v Fitzpatrick (1888) 38 Ch D 410, CA. Furthermore, obtaining particulars from an opponent limits the issue; an opponent is bound by his particulars and will not be allowed at the trial to go into any matters not fairly included therein. In the words of Watkin Williams J in Thompson v Birkley (1882) 47 LT 700, DC, particulars prevent surprise at the trial, and limit inquiry
