The Plaintiff sued the defendant for special and general damages. The basis of the claim was the dishonour of cheques from which the Plaintiff claimed damages from the defendant’s breach of duty arising out of banker-customer relationship. The defendant raised a preliminary objection that the matter was res judicata. That the Plaintiff therein in an earlier case (Commercial Case No. 21 of 2009) had sued the defendant. That the conflict between the parties arose from the relationship due from a facility letter and a loan agreement. In the earlier suit, the Plaintiff had sought the court’s intervention to prevent the defendant from putting the Plaintiff under receivership and for an order or restructuring of the outstanding loan. The Plaintiff argued that in the former suit, the Plaintiff was standing as a borrower suing his bank as a lender, while in the present case, he was a customer suing his bank for breach of contract and for dishonouring its cheques. At the beginning of their replying submissions in opposition of the preliminary objection, the Plaintiff raised points of objection that the filing of the notice of preliminary objection was contrary to Order VIII rule 13 of the CPC as the defendant ought to have included it in its written statement of defence (WSD) and not on a separate document as it did.