Wakilii

Alex Onzima Abidinego and Others v Abiyo George and Others (Miscellaneous Application No. 28 of 2025)

High Court · [2026] UGHC 124 · 2026 Application Partly Allowed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Application for leave to file reply to written statement of defence and counterclaim arising from civil suit for trespass to customary land
Decision
Applicants granted leave to file reply and counterclaim but not to amend plaint

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 applicants to file a reply to the joint written statement of defence and counterclaim, but declined to grant leave to amend the plaint. The court held that the applicants had the opportunity to respond to the sale agreement and challenge the title when the written statement of defence was filed, and that fraud arising from the same transaction could be pleaded in a counterclaim rather than requiring amendment of the plaint.

Outcome

Applicants granted leave to file reply and counterclaim but not to amend plaint

Facts

The applicants filed a civil suit in October 2022 claiming trespass to their customary land of approximately 50 acres at Biacici Village. The respondents filed their written statement of defence in November 2022, attaching a sale agreement dated 30 July 2021 but not mentioning a title deed. In November 2024, when the respondents filed their trial bundle, the applicants discovered that the 4th respondent had been registered as proprietor of a freehold certificate of title to the suit land in April 2024. The applicants then sought leave to amend their plaint to include fraud as a cause of action and to file a counterclaim. The 4th respondent opposed the application, arguing that the applicants should instead file a reply to the written statement of defence.

Issues

  1. Whether the applicants should be granted leave to amend their plaint to include fraud as a cause of action and file a counterclaim.
  2. Whether the applicants should instead be granted leave to file a reply to the written statement of defence and counterclaim.

Orders

  • Application allowed in part.
  • Applicants granted leave to file and serve reply to joint written statement of defence and counterclaim within fourteen days from date of ruling.
  • Reply and counterclaim to be filed and served on respondents within fourteen days.
  • Costs to abide by outcome of main cause.

Rules and key headnotes

Civil Procedure — Amendment of Pleadings — Timing and Discretion
The court has discretion under Order 6 Rule 19 of the Civil Procedure Rules to allow amendment of pleadings at any stage of proceedings where necessary to determine the real questions in controversy between the parties, but this discretion must be exercised judiciously having regard to the procedural history and opportunities already available to the parties.
Civil Procedure — Reply to Defence and Counterclaim — Proper Procedure
Where a defendant's written statement of defence discloses matters that the plaintiff wishes to challenge, including allegations of fraud arising from the same transaction as the original claim, the proper procedure is to file a reply to the written statement of defence and counterclaim rather than to amend the plaint.
Civil Procedure — Counterclaim — Fraud Claims
A claim of fraud can be pleaded in a counterclaim provided the fraud arises from the same transaction or occurrence as the initial claim, and must be pleaded with particularity stating the time, place, content of false misrepresentations, details of fraudulent acts, who committed them, and what was obtained.

Legislation cited (6)

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Alex Onzima Abidinego and Others v Abiyo George and Others (Miscellaneous Application No. 28 of 2025) [2026] UGHC 124 (17 February 2026)
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.