Wakilii

Axis Warriors Limited v Development Microfinance Limited (Miscellaneous Application No. 355 of 2026)

High Court · [2026] UGCOMMC 270 · 2026 Application Granted ✦ AI-generated summary ↓ Download
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Application for leave to amend counterclaim arising from civil suit
Decision
Application granted with leave to amend counterclaim within 15 days

The full judgment

Read the complete, verbatim text of this judgment.

Sign in to read the full judgment

AI-generated summary. This summary was generated by AI from the full text of the judgment. It may contain errors or omissions — always read the source judgment before relying on it.

Holding

The High Court granted leave to amend a counterclaim where the applicant's counsel had mistakenly claimed salary arrears for only one security guard instead of 32 guards deployed across multiple branches. The court held that correcting the quantum claimed did not introduce a new cause of action, as breach of contract was already pleaded. The proposed amendments arose from the same security agreement relied upon in the main suit and did not prejudice the respondent. Amendment was necessary to determine the real issues in controversy and avoid multiplicity of suits.

Facts

The Respondent and its insurer sued the Applicant for breach of contract and negligence arising from a theft at insured premises, claiming UGX 102,900,480. The Applicant filed a counterclaim for unpaid salary arrears. The Applicant had contracted to provide security services to eight branches of the Respondent, deploying 24 unarmed guards at UGX 400,000 monthly each and 8 armed guards at UGX 500,000 monthly each, totalling UGX 13,600,000 monthly. When the contract was terminated, two months' arrears totalling UGX 27,200,000 were outstanding. However, the Applicant's counsel mistakenly claimed only UGX 1,000,000 (arrears for one guard at one branch) in the counterclaim and also interchanged annexures. The Applicant sought leave to amend to correct the quantum and properly mark annexures. The Respondent opposed, arguing the amendment introduced a new cause of action and would prejudice the insurer in the subrogation claim.

Issues

  1. Whether the Applicant should be granted leave to amend the counterclaim in Civil Suit No. 814 of 2025.
  2. What remedies are available to the parties.

Orders

  • Leave is hereby granted to the Applicant to rectify the amount in the counterclaim as well as mark the annexures thereto.
  • The Applicant shall file and serve the amended counterclaim to the Respondent within fifteen (15) days from the date of this Ruling.
  • Costs of this application shall be in the cause.

Key headnotes

Civil Procedure — Amendment of Pleadings — Discretion of Court — Order 6 rule 19
The court has discretionary power under Order 6 rule 19 of the Civil Procedure Rules to allow amendment of pleadings at any stage of proceedings to determine the real questions in controversy between the parties.
Civil Procedure — Amendment of Pleadings — Correction of Quantum — Not a New Cause of Action
Amending a counterclaim to correct the quantum of damages claimed from UGX 1,000,000 to UGX 27,200,000 does not introduce a new cause of action where breach of contract was already pleaded and the amendment merely rectifies an omission by counsel in calculating the full amount owed under the same contractual arrangement.
Civil Procedure — Amendment of Pleadings — Principles Governing Grant of Leave
In exercising discretion to allow amendment of pleadings, the court considers whether the amendment would work injustice on the other side, whether it avoids multiplicity of proceedings, whether the application is made mala fide, and whether the amendment is prohibited by law.
Civil Procedure — Counterclaim — Separate Cause of Action — Relevance to Main Suit
A counterclaim is a separate suit introducing a new cause of action. Where both the main suit and counterclaim arise from the same contractual arrangement, amendments to the counterclaim that do not introduce distinct obligations or different factual circumstances are relevant and do not prejudice the plaintiff, even where the main suit is brought under the principle of subrogation.

Legislation cited (5)

  • Civil Procedure Act Cap. 282 s.98
  • Civil Procedure Rules SI 71-1 Order 6 rule 19
  • Civil Procedure Rules SI 71-1 Order 6 rule 31
  • Civil Procedure Rules Order 8 rule 1
  • Judicature Act Cap. 16 s.37

Cases cited (4)

  • Ssemwanga Asumani & 4 Others v Erusa Nambalirwa Nabateezi & 4 Others (HCMA No. 1800 of 2022)
  • Eastern Bakery v Castelino [1958] 1 EA 461
  • Gaso Transport Services (Bus) Ltd v Martin Adala Obene (SCCA No. 04 of 1994)
  • Bwende Rwabwana v Jjuko Peter (HCMA No. 39 of 2025)
Source: this page presents Wakilii’s issue analysis and metadata for a publicly reported Ugandan judgment. Any AI-generated summary is marked as such. Judgment text is sourced from the Uganda Legal Information Institute (ulii.org). Wakilii is not affiliated with ULII.