Wakilii

A.G. of Rwanda v The Union Trade Centre (Application 1 of 2018)

East African Court of Justice · [2018] EACJ 78 · 2018 Application Dismissed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Application to strike out an Amended Reference arising from Reference No. 10 of 2013 ordered for retrial de novo by the Appellate Division
Decision
Application dismissed; Second Amended Reference remains on the Court record

Observed later treatment

No later-treatment classification is recorded for this judgment.

Citator coverage is limited to judgments in the Wakilii corpus and source-matched treatment records. Absence of a signal is not an assertion that the case remains good law.

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 Court held that the Second Amended Reference did not introduce a new cause of action but rather introduced another incidence of breach in respect of the pre-existing cause of action. The central issue in both the First and Second Amended References remained the deprivation of the company's use and enjoyment of its property. The amendments did not substantially change the nature of the case and were properly on the Court record under Rule 50(1) and (2)(b) of the Court's Rules. The application to strike out the Amended Reference was dismissed.

Outcome

Application dismissed; Second Amended Reference remains on the Court record

Facts

The Union Trade Centre (UTC) filed Reference No. 10 of 2013 challenging actions of the Kigali City Abandoned Property Management Commission regarding its mall in Nyarugenge District. The Appellate Division ordered a retrial de novo in November 2015. A First Amended Reference was filed in November 2016. In November 2017, it transpired that the UTC mall had been auctioned by the Rwanda Revenue Authority for tax defaults. The Court allowed an oral application to further amend the Reference. UTC filed a Second Amended Reference in December 2017, introducing the auction by the Rwanda Revenue Authority. The Attorney General of Rwanda applied to strike out the Second Amended Reference, arguing it introduced a new cause of action and violated rules on amendment of pleadings.

Issues

  1. Whether the Second Amended Reference filed by the Respondent introduces a new cause of action contrary to the rules governing amendment of pleadings.
  2. Whether the Second Amended Reference should be struck out in whole or in part for violating the Court's Rules of Procedure.

Orders

  • Application to strike out the Amended Reference dismissed.
  • No order as to costs.

Rules and key headnotes

Amendment of Pleadings — Purpose and Scope
The cardinal principle governing amendment of pleadings is that amendments are for purposes of determining the real question in controversy between the parties or correcting any defect or error in any pleading.
Amendment of Pleadings — Retrial De Novo
A retrial de novo means a new trial on the entire case conducted as if there had been no trial in the first instance. The wider interpretation of trial de novo permits re-consideration of the matter in a way that exhausts all issues and settles the real matter in dispute between the parties, which is pertinent to the ends of justice and reflects the purpose of amendments.
Amendment of Pleadings — New Cause of Action
A cause of action in the East African Court of Justice exists where it is contended that the matter complained of violates national law of a Partner State or infringes any provision of the Treaty. In assessing whether proposed amendments introduce a new cause of action, it is necessary to consider the statement of case as a whole. Where the only difference is a further instance of breach or the addition of a new remedy, there is no addition of a new cause of action.
Amendment of Pleadings — Rule 50(2)(c) — Same or Substantially Same Facts
Rule 50(2)(c) of the East African Court of Justice Rules permits the introduction of a new cause of action notwithstanding expiration of a limitation period, provided the new cause of action arises out of the same facts or substantially the same facts as the original cause of action. The test of substantiality requires that the central facts of both causes of action must be the same or based on substantially the same facts.
Amendment of Pleadings — Rule 50(2)(b) — Alteration of Capacity
Rule 50(2)(b) permits amendment that alters the capacity in which a party is or would be made party to proceedings, provided the altered capacity is one which that party could have been or could have been made party at the institution of the proceedings. This rule resonates with enabling parties to develop their respective cases in the context of changed perspectives or circumstances.
Striking Out Pleadings — Grounds
Under Rule 47(1) of the Court's Rules, the Court may strike out all or part of a pleading on the ground that it may prejudice or delay the trial, is scandalous, frivolous or vexatious, or is an abuse of the process of the Court. Pleadings that clarify the real issues in controversy and neither prejudice nor delay fair trial will not be struck out.

Cases cited (12)

  • Martha W. Karua vs. African Broadcasting Corporation & 2 Others High Court Civil Suit No. 288 of 2004 (Kenya)
  • Auto Garage v Motokov (1971) EA 514
  • Mulowoza & Brothers vs. Ensha & Co. Ltd. Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 26 of 2010 (Uganda)
  • Central Kenya Ltd vs. Trust Bank Ltd & 4 Others, Civil Appeal 222 of 1998 (Kenya)
  • Sitenda Sebalu vs. The Secretary General of the East African Community & Others EACT Ref. No. 1 of 2010
  • Simon Peter Ochieng & Another vs. The Attorney General of the Republic of Uganda. EACT Ref No. 11 of 2013
  • British American Tobacco (BAT) vs. Attorney General of the Republic of Uganda EACT Application No. 11 of 2017
  • Leeds and Holbeck Building Society vs Ellis (2000) LTL 5/10/2000
  • Savings and Investment Bank Limited vs. Fincken (2001) EWCA Civ. 1639
  • Darlington Building Society vs. O'Rourke James Scourfield (1999) PNLR 365
  • Hoechst UK Ltd vs. Commissioners of Inland Revenue (2003) EWHC 1002 (Ch)
  • Hemmingway vs. Roddam (2003) EWCA Civ. 1342

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

The original judgment as reported. Read the original PDF before relying on any passage.

A.G. of Rwanda v The Union Trade Centre (Application 1 of 2018) [2018] EACJ 78 (29 March 2018)
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.