Court held that this was not the kind of matter that ought to
have been brought by way of originating summons as it was

neither straight forward nor simple, that the plaintiff ought to
have proceeded in the ordinary way.

Court was satisfied that there was need for evidence to prove
matters alluded to by all parties due to the fact that the plaintiff
raised issues of fraud, which was a matter to be specifically
proved by oral and documentary evidence.
Accordingly the court dismissed the plaintiffs procedure of
originating summons and upheld the defendant’s preliminary
objection holding that originating summons can not suffice
where the suit relates to disputed facts and complicated matters of
law.