Wakilii

Amit v Hon. Lokii (Miscellaneous Application 695 of 2019)

High Court · [2021] UGCOMMC 164 · 2021 Application Granted AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Application to amend plaint arising from summary suit for recovery of loan
Decision
Application allowed; applicant granted leave to amend plaint; matter proceeds to trial

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 amend the plaint to correct a drafting error that wrongly described the applicant as a limited liability company instead of a natural person. Applying Order 6 rules 9, 18 and 31 of the Civil Procedure Rules, the court held that amendments should be freely allowed before hearing where they do not cause injustice to the other party and enable the court to determine the real controversy. The proposed amendment would not introduce a new cause of action or change the suit's character, and any prejudice could be compensated by costs.

Outcome

Application allowed; applicant granted leave to amend plaint; matter proceeds to trial

Facts

The applicant sued the respondent under summary procedure for recovery of shs. 335,175,000, comprising a loan of shs. 265,000,000 advanced in September 2012 at 2% monthly interest plus accrued interest of shs. 70,175,000. The loan was allegedly evidenced by a memorandum of understanding, promissory note, post-dated cheques, three motor vehicle log books and an acknowledgement letter. The respondent was granted leave to defend and indicated he would raise a preliminary objection regarding the applicant's capacity to sue, as the plaint described the applicant as a limited liability company when he was not. The respondent denied any loan contract and stated the documents were in the applicant's custody for a different purpose. The applicant then applied to amend the plaint to correct the mis-description from a limited liability company to a natural person, attributing this to a drafting error.

Issues

  1. Whether the applicant should be granted leave to amend the plaint to correct a mis-description of his legal status from a limited liability company to a natural person.

Orders

  • Application granted.
  • Applicant granted 14 days from 20th May 2021 to file and serve amended plaint.
  • Parties directed to file witness statements, trial bundles and joint memorandum of scheduling before next hearing.
  • Hearing of suit fixed for 25th August 2021 at 11:00 am.
  • Costs of the application to abide the results of the suit.

Rules and key headnotes

Civil Procedure — Amendment of Pleadings — Principles — Discretion of Court
Order 6 rules 9, 18 and 31 of the Civil Procedure Rules give the court wide discretion to allow amendment of pleadings at any stage of proceedings in such manner and on such terms as necessary to determine the real question in controversy between the parties.
Civil Procedure — Amendment of Pleadings — Guiding Principles — No Injustice to Other Party
The paramount guiding principle in allowing amendment of pleadings is that the intended amendment should enable the court to determine the real questions in controversy without causing injustice to the other party, and an injury which can be compensated by costs is not an injustice.
Civil Procedure — Amendment of Pleadings — Pre-Hearing Amendments — Liberal Approach
Amendments to pleadings sought before hearing should be freely allowed if they can be made without injustice to the other side, and there is no injustice if the other side can be compensated by costs.
Civil Procedure — Amendment of Pleadings — New Cause of Action — Permissibility
The court will not refuse to allow an amendment simply because it introduces a new cause of action, provided it would not change the suit into one of a substantially different character.
Civil Procedure — Amendment of Pleadings — Prohibited Amendments
Court cannot by way of amendment sanction the altering or substitution of one distinct cause of action for another or change of the subject matter of the suit, and no amendment should be allowed where it renders a defendant's defence of limitation useless or is expressly or impliedly prohibited by law.
Civil Procedure — Amendment of Pleadings — Purpose — Determining True Controversy
The objective of allowing amendments is to ensure that litigation is conducted on the true state of facts and the true remedy the parties really and finally intend to rely on, rather than on a false hypothesis of facts already pleaded, in order to determine the real question in controversy and administer justice without undue regard to technicalities.

Legislation cited (7)

Cases cited (7)

  • Gaso Transport Services (Bus) Ltd v Obene [1990-94] EA 88
  • Nzirane v Matiya Lukwago [1971] HCB 75
  • Eastern Bakery v Castelino [1958] EA 641
  • Muwolooza & Brothers v N Shah & Co Ltd (Civil Appeal No. 26 of 2010)
  • Nambi v Bunyoro General Merchants [1974] HCB 12
  • Biiso v Tibamwenda [1991] HCB 92
  • Hill & Grant Ltd v Hodson [1934] Ch D 53

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Amit v Hon. Lokii (Miscellaneous Application 695 of 2019) [2021] UGCommC 164 (20 May 2021)
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.