Wakilii

Abdu Nassar v Yesero Mugenyi and Another (Miscellaneous Application 1403 of 2022)

High Court · [2022] UGHCLD 262 · 2022 Application Granted AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Application for leave to amend plaint arising from Civil Suit No. 87 of 2005
Decision
Application granted; leave given to amend plaint; main case reopened for amendment

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 granted leave to the applicant to further amend the plaint in Civil Suit No. 87 of 2005 to add four defendants. The court found that the applicant satisfied the requirements for amendment under Order 6 Rule 19 CPR, as the amendment would enable full determination of all questions in controversy, avoid multiplicity of actions, and would not work prejudice against the respondents since the hearing had not yet commenced. The application for striking out paragraphs from the defendant's witness statement was to be dealt with at trial.

Outcome

Application granted; leave given to amend plaint; main case reopened for amendment

Facts

The applicant brought an application under Section 98 of the Civil Procedure Act and Order 6 Rules 19 and 31 of the Civil Procedure Rules seeking leave to further amend his plaint in Civil Suit No. 87 of 2005 to add four defendants. The applicant argued that the 1st defendant raised new allegations in his witness statement that were not originally in the amended written statement of defence and alluded to new parties necessary for effectual disposal of the suit. The applicant claimed to have discovered new evidence relating to alleged fraudulent disposal of the suit property. The respondents opposed the application, arguing it was time-barred, contained material falsehoods, and was intended to delay court process, noting the applicant had already testified and closed his case in the main suit.

Issues

  1. Whether the Applicant has shown grounds to be granted leave to amend its plaint in the main suit.
  2. Whether the stated paragraphs in the 1st defendant's witness statement can be struck out.

Orders

  • The Applicant is granted leave to further amend his plaint in Civil Suit No. 87 of 2005 to add 4 defendants.
  • The Applicant shall file the amended plaint and serve the respondents in accordance with the law.
  • 1st defendant's witness statement remains as is to be dealt with at trial.
  • The main case is opened for purposes of effecting the amendment.
  • The costs of this application shall abide the outcome of the main suit.

Rules and key headnotes

Civil Procedure — Amendment of Pleadings — Principles Governing Court's Discretion
Under Order 6 Rule 19 of the Civil Procedure Rules, the court may at any stage of proceedings allow a party to amend pleadings where the amendment enables determination of the real questions in controversy between the parties, does not work an injustice to the other side, avoids multiplicity of proceedings, and is not made in bad faith.
Civil Procedure — Amendment of Pleadings — Addition of Parties
Leave to amend a plaint to add parties may be granted even after a plaintiff has testified where the hearing has not yet commenced, the amendment will enable full determination of all questions in controversy, and there is no prejudice to the respondents that cannot be compensated by costs.

Legislation cited (3)

Cases cited (3)

  • Gaso Transport Services (Bus) Ltd v Obene (1990-1994) EA 88
  • Mulowooza & Brothers Ltd v Shah & Co Ltd (SCCA No. 26 of 2010)
  • Nichoras Serunkuma Ssewagudde & 2 Others v Namasole Namusoke Namatovu Veronica (HCMA No. 1307 of 2016)

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Abdu_Nassar_v_Yesero_Mugenyi_and_Another_(Miscellaneous_Application_1403_of_2022)_[2022]_UGHCLD_262_(23_November_2022)
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.