Wakilii

Abdu Nassar v Yesero Mugenyi and Another (Miscellaneous Application No. 1403 of 2022)

High Court · [2022] UGHCLD 335 · 2022 Application Granted AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Interlocutory application for leave to amend plaint in pending civil suit
Decision
Application granted; leave to amend plaint allowed; main case reopened

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 High Court granted the applicant leave to further amend the plaint in Civil Suit No. 87 of 2005 to add four defendants. The court found no prejudice to the respondents, no bad faith by the applicant, and held that the amendment would enable full determination of all questions in controversy and avoid multiplicity of actions. The court declined to strike out paragraphs from the 1st defendant's witness statement, leaving that issue to be dealt with at trial. The main case was reopened for purposes of effecting the amendment.

Outcome

Application granted; leave to amend plaint allowed; main case reopened

Facts

The applicant brought an interlocutory application in a pending civil suit (Civil Suit No. 87 of 2005) seeking leave to further amend the plaint to add four defendants and include additional facts that came to his knowledge after filing. The applicant argued that the 1st defendant's witness statement raised new allegations 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 fraud in the disposal of the suit property and that the intended 2nd, 3rd, 4th and 5th defendants participated in or were privy to fraudulent dealings. The respondents opposed, arguing the application contained material falsehoods, lacked merit, was an abuse of process, and was time-barred since the applicant had already testified and closed his case.

Issues

  1. Whether the applicant has shown grounds to be granted leave to amend his 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 — Discretion of Court — Principles
The court may allow amendment of pleadings at any stage of proceedings to determine the real questions in controversy between parties, where the amendment does not work an injustice to the other side, avoids multiplicity of proceedings, is not made in bad faith, and is not expressly or impliedly prohibited by law.
Civil Procedure — Amendment of Pleadings — Addition of Parties — Test
Leave to amend pleadings to add parties will be granted where the applicant satisfies the court that the new parties are necessary for effectual and complete disposal of the suit, no prejudice will be suffered by the respondent, the application is not brought in bad faith, and the amendment will enable the court to fully determine all questions in controversy and avoid multiplicity of actions.

Legislation cited (3)

Cases cited (3)

  • Gaso Transport Services (Bus) Ltd v Obene (1990-1994) EA 88
  • Mulowooza & Brothers Ltd v Shah & Co Ltd (Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 26 of 2010)
  • Nicholas Serunkuma Ssewagudde & 2 Others v Namasole Namusoke Namatovu Veronica (High Court Miscellaneous Application 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_No._1403_of_2022)_[2022]_UGHCLD_335_(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.