Wakilii

Assa Abloy (U) Ltd v John Mboizi (Miscellaneous Application No. 784 of 2021)

High Court · [2022] UGCOMMC 32 · 2022 Application Granted AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Application for leave to amend plaint in pending civil suit
Decision
Application granted with leave to amend plaint; respondent awarded costs of the application

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 increase the sum claimed from UGX 108,645,477.61 to UGX 169,478,282 and to plead particular facts backing the claim. The amendment was permissible under Order 6 Rule 19 of the Civil Procedure Rules as it did not introduce a new cause of action, merely altered the quantum of an existing claim, and could be made without injustice to the respondent who could be compensated by costs and given opportunity to amend his defence.

Outcome

Application granted with leave to amend plaint; respondent awarded costs of the application

Facts

The Applicant sued the Respondent in Civil Suit No. 761 of 2020 for refund of UGX 108,645,477.61 being money and stock received by the Respondent as Sales Manager from the Applicant's indebted clients but not remitted. The Applicant sought to amend the plaint to increase the claim to UGX 169,478,282 based on an audit conducted after filing suit. The audit revealed additional amounts received by the Respondent from various clients: UGX 16,900,000 from Delight Hardware, UGX 39,366,583 from Prisma Ltd, UGX 5,466,230 from Golf Ceramics, and UGX 26,574,990 from Jonik Hardware. At the time of the application, pleadings had been filed but hearing had not commenced. The Respondent opposed the amendment arguing the audit report had not been tested in evidence and the amendment would prejudice him.

Issues

  1. Whether the Applicant should be granted leave to amend the plaint in Civil Suit No. 761 of 2020

Orders

  • The Applicant is hereby granted leave to amend its plaint in Civil Suit No. 761 of 2020.
  • The Applicant is ordered to file its amended plaint in Civil Suit No. 761 of 2020 within seven (7) days from date of this ruling.
  • The Respondent is ordered to file its amended Written Statement of Defence in Civil Suit No. 761 of 2020, if any, within fifteen (15) days from date of filing of the amended plaint in the main suit.
  • Costs of this application are awarded to the Respondent.

Rules and key headnotes

Civil Procedure — Amendment of Pleadings — Principles Governing Grant of Leave
Under Order 6 Rule 19 of the Civil Procedure Rules, the court may at any stage of proceedings allow a party to amend pleadings in such manner and on such terms as may be just, and amendments should be freely allowed before hearing 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 — Alteration of Quantum Claimed
An amendment that seeks to alter the quantum of an already existing claim for recovery of money and to provide particular facts backing the sum claimed is a permissible amendment that does not introduce a new cause of action or change the subject matter of the suit.
Civil Procedure — Amendment of Pleadings — Timing and Prejudice
Where pleadings have been filed but hearing has not commenced and evidence has not been adduced, the timing of an amendment to increase the sum claimed and plead supporting facts is not prejudicial to the respondent, particularly where the respondent will have opportunity to amend his defence and can be compensated by costs.

Legislation cited (4)

Cases cited (8)

  • Eastern Bakery v Castelino [1958] 1 EA 461
  • Tildesley v Harper (1878) 10 Ch D 393
  • Clarapede v Commercial Union Association (1883) 32 WR 262
  • Budding v Murdoch (1875) 1 Ch D 42
  • Ma Shwe Mya v Maung Po Hnaung (1921) 48 IA 214
  • Raleigh v Goschen [1898] 1 Ch 73
  • Weldon v Neal (1887) 19 QBD 394
  • Hilton v Sutton Steam Laundry [1946] KB 65

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Assa Abloy (U) Ltd v John Mboizi (Miscellaneous Application No. 784 of 2021) [2022] UGCommC 32 (2 June 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.