Wakilii

Bahurire Rosette v Kijagali David and Others [2026] UGHC 301

High Court · 2026 Application Granted AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Application for joinder of parties and leave to amend plaint in pending civil suit
Decision
Application allowed; parties joined and leave to amend plaint granted

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 the application for joinder of parties and leave to amend the plaint. The court held that the third, fourth, and fifth respondents, who had acquired interests in the suit land, were necessary parties for effectual and complete adjudication of all questions in controversy. The court further held that amendment of the plaint was necessary to determine the real questions in controversy between the parties and would not cause injustice to any party. The application was allowed with costs in the cause.

Outcome

Application allowed; parties joined and leave to amend plaint granted

Facts

The applicant, Bahurire Rosette, filed a civil suit (HCCS No. 83 of 2022) against the first and second respondents seeking a declaration that land comprised in Leasehold Register Volume KQT484 Folio 22 was family land. The applicant claimed she was the legal wife of the first respondent, married customarily in 1996 and under the Marriage Act in 2014. During the marriage, they received a gift of approximately 300 acres of land from the first respondent's father. The applicant alleged that the first respondent disposed of the land without her knowledge and defaulted on loan repayments to Centenary Bank, which was threatening foreclosure. The applicant's lawyers initially filed the plaint naming only the first and second respondents as defendants. The applicant subsequently brought this application seeking to join three additional parties (Gumisiriza Alex, Kyatukwire David, and Centenary Bank Ltd) who had acquired interests in the suit land, and to amend the plaint accordingly. The respondents did not file any response to the application.

Issues

  1. Whether the intended parties should be added as defendants in H.C.C.S No. 83 of 2022 in the circumstances.
  2. Whether the applicant has shown grounds entitling her to be granted leave to amend her plaint.
  3. What remedies are available.

Orders

  • Gumisiriza Alex, Kyatukwire David and Centenary Rural Development Bank Ltd are hereby joined as defendants in Civil Suit no. 83 of 2022.
  • The applicant shall file an amended plaint within 14 days from the date of this ruling and serve the same together with fresh summons upon the 3rd, 4th and 5th respondents.
  • The 3rd, 4th, 5th respondents shall file their Written Statements of Defence within 14 days from the date of service of the amended plaint.
  • The applicant shall file a reply to the Written statements of defence (if any) within 7 days from the date of service upon them of the Written Statements of Defence.
  • Costs shall be in the cause.

Rules and key headnotes

Civil Procedure — Joinder of Parties — Test for Addition of Parties
For a person to be joined as a party to a suit on the ground that their presence is necessary for effectual and complete settlement of all questions involved, it must be shown either that the orders sought would legally affect the interests of that person, or that it is desirable for avoidance of multiplicity of suits to have such person joined so that they are bound by the decision of the court.
Civil Procedure — Joinder of Parties — Persons with Interests in Subject Matter
Where persons have acquired interests in the subject matter of a suit, their addition as parties is necessary to enable the court to effectually and completely adjudicate and settle all questions concerning the suit property.
Civil Procedure — Amendment of Pleadings — Principles Governing Grant of Leave
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. The main principle is that an amendment should not be allowed if it causes injustice to the other party.
Civil Procedure — Amendment of Pleadings — Purpose and Object
The object of amendment of pleadings is to enable the parties to alter their pleadings so as to determine the true substantive merits of the case, having regard to the substance rather than form, and to determine the real questions in controversy between the parties.

Legislation cited (10)

  • Judicature Act Cap 13 s.36
  • Civil Procedure Act Cap 282 s.98
  • Civil Procedure Rules O.1 r.10(2)
  • Civil Procedure Rules O.1 r.13
  • Civil Procedure Rules O.5 r.19
  • Civil Procedure Rules O.5 r.31
  • Civil Procedure Rules O.6 r.13
  • Civil Procedure Rules O.6 r.19
  • Civil Procedure Rules O.52 r.1
  • Civil Procedure Rules O.52 r.3

Cases cited (10)

  • Yahaya Kariisa v Attorney General and Another (SCCA No. 7 of 1994)
  • Departed Asians Property Custodian Board v Jaffer Brothers Ltd (SCCA No. 9 of 1998)
  • Kawooya Mathias and Others v Naavah Bena (MA 3381 of 2025)
  • Samson Sempasa v P.K Sengendo (HCMA 577 of 2013)
  • Gaso Transport Services Ltd v Martin Adala Obene (SCCA 4 of 1994)
  • Mulowooza & Brothers Ltd v Shah & Co. Ltd (SCCA No. 26 of 2010)
  • Nicholas Serunkuma Sserwanga and 2 Others v Namasole Namusoke Namatovu Veronica (HCMA 1307 of 2016)
  • Eastern Bakery vs Castelino (1958) 1 EA 467
  • Assa Abloy (U) Ltd v John Mboizi (Misc. Application No. 184 of 2021)
  • Sarah Nyakato v Lin Jeng Liang and 5 Others (Miscellaneous Application No. 316 of 2022)

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Bahurire Rosette v Kijagali David and Others 2026 UGHC 301 (31 March 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.