Decisions under O 18 r 19 are appealable judgments, not mere rulings, and failures to properly address limitations can lead to successful strikes of counterclaims.

[1] There were three appeals before us. They involved different appellants but the same respondents and were heard together. We shall refer to Appeal No: B-02(IM)(NCVC)-864-05-2016 as "the first appeal", Appeal No: B-02(IM) (NCVC)-867-05-2016 as "the second appeal" and Appeal No: B-02(IM) (NCVC)-975-05-2016 as "the third appeal".

[2] The issue common to all three appeals was whether the learned High Court Judge was right in dismissing the appellants' application to strike out the respondents' counterclaim under O 18 r 19 of the Rules of 2012 ("the Rules").

[3] The striking out application by the appellants in the first appeal was for the following orders:

"(1) those parts of the Amended Defence and Counterclaim dated 13 August 2015 of the plaintiffs (by counterclaim) as concern allegations premised on s 132G of the Companies Act 1965 , in particular paras 6 to 23, 61,62, 81,82, 85, 86(f) to (i) and 86(n), be struck out and the action in that regard be dismissed as against the 1st and/or 2nd and/or 4th defendants (by counterclaim);

(2) the costs of and incidental to the action in that regard and of this application on an indemnity basis be paid by the plaintiffs (by the counterclaim) to the 1st and/or 2nd and/or 4th defendants (by counterclaim); and

(3) such further or other relief be given as deemed fit and proper by the Court.

The grounds of this application is that the impugned part of the action of the plaintiffs (by counterclaim):- (a) discloses no reasonable cause of action against the 1st and/or 2nd and/or 4th defendants (by counterclaim); (b) seeks no relief against the 1st and/or 2nd and/or 4th defendants (by counterclaim); and/or (c) is barred by limitation."

[4] The striking out application by the appellant in the second appeal was for the following orders:

"(1) That the Counterclaim as contained in the Defence and Counterclaim dated 9 February 2015 (the "Counterclaim") herein be struck out pursuant to the inherent jurisdiction of the Court or under O 18 r 19(1)(a), (b), (c) or (d) of the Rules of 2012 and the action against the 3rd defendant (by Counterclaim) be dismissed on the grounds that:

(a) it discloses no reasonable cause of action; or

(b) it is scandalous, frivolous or vexatious; or

(c) it may prejudice, embarrass or delay the fair trial of the action; or

(d) it is otherwise an abuse of the process of this Court."

[5] Lastly, the striking out application by the appellant in the third appeal:

"(1) that the Counterclaim Action against the 5th defendant by the counterclaim plaintiffs be struck out pursuant to O 18 r 19(1)(a) or (b) or (c) or (d) of the Rules of 2012 on the grounds:

(i) that it discloses no reasonable cause of action against the 5th defendant;

(ii) that it is frivolous or vexatious;

(iii) that it may prejudice, embarrass, or delay the fair trial of the Original Action; or

(iv) it is otherwise an abuse of the process of the Court;"

[6] Having heard the arguments by the parties, we were unanimous in our view that the learned judge was wrong in not striking out the respondents' counterclaim. We had, in the circumstances, allowed the appeals with costs. To avoid confusion, we shall when dealing with the facts and merits of the appeals refer to the parties by their full names where necessary.