Zambia, Attorney General v Meer Care & Desai (A Firm) & Ors

In a complex fraud and conspiracy claim, the required particularity of pleadings depends on the nature and scale of the case. A lengthy pleading is not abusive merely because it is long, where the detail is reasonably necessary to identify the allegations and enable the defendants to answer them. Allegations of fraud, illegality, breach of trust, notice and wilful default must be specifically set out. An inferential case based on transactions and the defendants’ responses may proceed where it is sufficiently intelligible, even though the claimant cannot yet establish a positive case. The court should avoid pre-emptive strike-out decisions before the defendants have pleaded and the evidential position is known.

The Attorney General of Zambia, for the Republic of Zambia, brought a large claim alleging conspiracy to defraud, misappropriation of public funds, dishonest receipt and dishonest assistance. The second and eighth defendants applied to strike out the claim as an abuse of process or obtain summary judgment. Following earlier hearings, the claimant sought permission to re-amend its Particulars of Claim and supplied a case summary and Scott Schedule. The central issues were whether the pleading was impermissibly long or insufficiently particularised, whether the conspiracy allegations were intelligible, and whether the claims for knowing receipt and related allegations should be struck out.

1. Applications refused. The court rejected the defendants’ comprehensive attack on the re-re-amended pleading, subject to further clarification concerning an unidentified officer and later identification of payments said to support knowing receipt rather than knowing assistance.
2. The length and complexity of a pleading must be assessed against the nature of the case. In a multi-party fraud and conspiracy claim involving numerous transactions and substantial sums, extensive detail may be necessary. The relevant question is whether the defendants understand the case they must meet.
3. Civil Procedure Rules 1998, rule 16.4 and Practice Direction 16, paragraph 8.2 require a concise statement of the facts and the specific pleading of fraud, illegality, breaches of trust, notice and wilful default. Those requirements do not require material detail to be omitted from a complicated claim.
4. The alleged conspiracy was sufficiently identified as an agreement to defraud the claimant by misappropriating and concealing government money through specified transactions. Participation could be pleaded inferentially from the nature of the transactions and the defendants’ inadequate explanations. It was inappropriate to decide summarily, before pleadings and evidence, whether the inference would ultimately be established.
5. The knowing-receipt case was not yet satisfactorily particularised, but the court declined to strike it out before seeing the defendants’ responses to the Scott Schedules. The issue could be raised after close of pleadings. Costs were provisionally costs in the case, subject to ordinary consequential costs of amendment.

The judgment records earlier interlocutory hearings on 22 and 23 March 2006, including an adjournment for reconsideration after the claimant sought further amendment. No appellate decision is stated.