Wakilii

Auto Parts Limited and Another v Twebaze and 2 Others (Miscellaneous Application No. 92 of 2021)

High Court · [2022] UGHCCD 237 · 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 arising from alleged over-execution of decree
Decision
Leave to amend plaint granted with directions for filing amended pleadings

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 leave to amend the plaint under Order 6 Rule 19 of the Civil Procedure Rules. The court held that amendment is a right where it enables determination of real questions in controversy without causing injustice to the opposite party. The proposed amendment sought to plead additional facts concerning payment of the decretal sum before execution and did not alter the cause of action. No injustice would be caused as the case was at an early stage and the respondents did not oppose the application.

Outcome

Leave to amend plaint granted with directions for filing amended pleadings

Facts

The applicants filed Civil Suit No. 30 of 2021 challenging execution of a decree from the Chief Magistrate's Court of Kasese for sale of an Iveco Truck Registration No. UAY 199B valued at UGX 40,000,000 as over-execution. During consideration of summons for directions, the applicants discovered an execution return filed on 12 February 2019 wherein the 3rd respondent confirmed that the 2nd applicant had fully settled the decretal sum to the judgment debtor. Despite this payment, the 1st and 3rd respondents proceeded to sell the 2nd applicant's automobile. The applicants sought leave to amend their plaint to include these facts which they contended were necessary for court to determine all questions in controversy. The respondents did not file an affidavit in reply or oppose the application.

Issues

  1. Whether the applicants should be granted leave to amend their plaint

Orders

  • Application granted.
  • Applicants to file an amended plaint and serve it upon the respondents within 15 days from the date of this ruling.
  • Respondents to file an amended written statement of defense if any within 15 days after receipt of the amended plaint.
  • Costs of taking out this application to abide the outcome of the suit.

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 where necessary to determine the real questions in controversy between the parties. Leave to amend is a right, not a matter of favour or grace, and should be granted where it enables the court to resolve all issues in controversy without causing injustice to the opposite party.
Civil Procedure — Amendment of Pleadings — Grounds for Grant or Refusal
The principles governing exercise of discretion in allowing amendments include: (1) the amendment should not work injustice to the other side; (2) an injury that can be compensated for by way of costs is not treated as an injustice; (3) multiplicity of proceedings should be avoided and amendments which avoid such multiplicity should be allowed; (4) an application made mala fide should not be granted; and (5) no amendment should be allowed where it is expressly or impliedly prohibited by law.
Civil Procedure — Amendment of Pleadings — Amendment at Early Stage of Proceedings
Where a case is at its early stages with no witnesses having testified, and the proposed amendment seeks only to plead additional facts without altering the cause of action, no injustice will be caused to the opposite party by granting leave to amend, particularly where the opposite party does not oppose the application.

Legislation cited (5)

Cases cited (2)

  • Gasso Transport Services Limited v Martin Adala Obene (Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 4 of 1994)
  • Cropper v Smith (1884) 26 Ch. D. 700 (CA)

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Auto Parts Limited and Another v Twebaze and 2 Others (Miscellaneous Application No. 92 of 2021) [2022] UGHCCD 237 (31 October 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.