In this case, the plaintiff and defendant ran a school which was later closed and even de-registered when misunderstandings arose between the two. On failure to agree on sharing of partnership assets and liabilities, the plaintiff instituted this suit and sought for court order on how to share the property.

The defendant raised a preliminary objection that the suit indicated that there was existence of a partnership yet it had already been dissolved, and that de-registration was further evidence to prove nonexistence of a partnership. He further argued that the suit offended order 34 rule 4 of the Civil Procedure Rules.

Counsel for the plaintiff opposed the preliminary objection and stated that the suit was proper as it was not based on whether a partnership existed, but rather on settling the question of assets and liabilities, which was to completely dissolve the partnership.