Wakilii

ASP Mugweri and 37 Others v Attorney General (Civil Miscellaneous Application No. 127 of 2021)

Industrial Court · [2021] UGIC 50 · 2021 Application Granted AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Application for leave to amend memorandum of claim in underlying labour dispute transferred from High Court
Decision
Application granted with leave to amend memorandum of claim within 14 days

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 Industrial Court granted leave to amend the memorandum of claim where the applicants' former lawyers had omitted material facts, claims and attachments. The court held that the amendment did not introduce new parties or a new cause of action, was brought in good faith, would enable full determination of the controversy, and would not occasion injustice to the respondent. The application was allowed under Order 6 Rule 19 of the Civil Procedure Rules.

Outcome

Application granted with leave to amend memorandum of claim within 14 days

Facts

The applicants are 38 former prison officers employed by the respondent from 1993 until their termination in 2008. They instructed M/s Katuntu & Co. Advocates to file Civil Suit No. 40/2013 in the High Court for unlawful termination. The matter was transferred to the Industrial Court on jurisdictional grounds. The applicants then instructed new lawyers, M/s Asire & Co. Advocates, who discovered that the previous lawyers had not included certain claims and attachments in the pleadings. The applicants sought leave to amend their memorandum of claim to include the omitted facts, claims and attachments, and to itemise individual claims reflecting different periods of service. The respondent opposed by witness statement, arguing the application was misconceived, frivolous, and introduced new causes of action and parties. The respondent failed to file submissions despite court directions.

Issues

  1. Whether grant of leave to amend is justified in the circumstances.
  2. Whether the application is illegal and bad in law as it introduces different parties.
  3. Whether the application is illegal and bad in law as it introduces new causes of action.

Orders

  • The Applicant is granted leave to amend their memorandum of claim in Labour Reference No. 168 of 2014 by attaching the intended amended memorandum of claim and attachments.
  • The Applicant shall file the amended plaint within 14 days from the date of delivery of this Ruling.
  • 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 — Order 6 Rule 19 CPR
The court has discretion at any stage of proceedings to allow a party to amend pleadings where the amendment is necessary to determine the real questions in controversy between the parties and is made in such manner and on such terms as may be just.
Civil Procedure — Amendment of Pleadings — Principles Governing Grant of Leave
Leave to amend pleadings should be granted where the amendment enables determination of the real question in controversy, does not occasion injustice to the opposite party, is in the interests of justice, avoids multiplicity of suits, is made in good faith, is not prohibited by law, and does not substitute one distinctive cause of action for another.
Civil Procedure — Amendment of Pleadings — Omissions by Former Counsel
Where a party's former lawyers omitted material facts, claims and attachments from pleadings, the court may grant leave to amend to include the omitted matters, provided the amendment does not introduce a new cause of action and the party acted in good faith upon discovering the omissions.
Civil Procedure — Affidavits — Witness Statements — Improper Procedure
A witness statement filed in opposition to an application under the Civil Procedure Rules is irregular and improper and does not amount to valid opposition to the application.

Legislation cited (4)

Cases cited (5)

  • Eastern Bakery v Castelino (1958) EA 451
  • Huawet Technologies (U)Ltd Vs Evepeak Consultants & Technical Services Ltd
  • Molowoza Brothers Ltd v N. Shah & Co. Ltd (Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 26 of 2010)
  • Gaso Transport Services (Bus) Ltd v Obene (1990-1994) EA 88
  • Nicholas Serunkuma Ssewagudde and 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.

ASP_Mugweri_and_37_Others_v_Attorney_General_(Civil_Miscellaneous_Application_No._127_of_2021)_[2021]_UGIC_50_(19_November_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.