Wakilii

Bakalumba Enterprises Ltd v Uganda Breweries Ltd & Anor (Miscellaneous Application No. 817 of 2021)

High Court · [2022] UGCOMMC 41 · 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 distributorship agreement dispute
Decision
Application granted with directions for filing amended plaint and defences

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 include claims for special damages and new causes of action arising from events that occurred after the suit was instituted. The court held that amendments should be allowed where they avoid multiplicity of proceedings and where the other party can be compensated by costs, even where the amendment introduces claims arising from subsequent developments within the same series of events.

Outcome

Application granted with directions for filing amended plaint and defences

Facts

The Applicant instituted a suit in November 2019 against the 1st Respondent for breach of a distributorship agreement and against the 2nd Respondent concerning a bank guarantee of UGX 800,000,000. The Applicant filed interlocutory applications to restrain the 2nd Respondent from paying the guaranteed sums to the 1st Respondent. Before the applications were heard, the 2nd Respondent paid the guaranteed sums to the 1st Respondent on 25 November 2019. The Applicant subsequently withdrew the interlocutory applications. In May 2021, the Applicant sought leave to amend the plaint to include claims for special damages discovered after a stock-taking exercise and to introduce new claims against the 2nd Respondent based on its payment of the bank guarantee while the matter was pending. The Applicant attributed the delay in bringing the application to COVID-19 lockdowns and focus on earlier interlocutory applications. The 2nd Respondent opposed the application, arguing that the proposed amendments did not disclose a cause of action and would introduce entirely new claims.

Issues

  1. Whether the Applicant should be granted leave to amend the Plaint in these circumstances.

Orders

  • The Applicant/Plaintiff is granted leave to amend its Plaint in Civil Suit No. 950 of 2019.
  • The Applicant/Plaintiff is directed to file and serve the Amended Plaint within Fourteen (14) days from the date of this Ruling.
  • Once served the Respondents/Defendants may file their Amended Written Statements of Defence to the Amended Plaint within Fourteen (14) days of being served.
  • The costs of this application shall abide the outcome of the main suit.

Rules and key headnotes

Civil Procedure — Amendment of Pleadings — Principles Governing Exercise of Discretion
The court has wide powers to allow amendment of pleadings to enable parties to determine the true substantive merits of the case. An amendment should be allowed however negligent or late the application, if it can be made without injustice to the other side. Injustice that can be compensated by costs is not treated as preventing an amendment.
Civil Procedure — Amendment of Pleadings — Avoidance of Multiplicity of Proceedings
The multiplicity of proceedings should be avoided as far as possible and all amendments which avoid such multiplicity should be allowed. Where disallowing an amendment would require the applicant to institute a separate suit on issues arising from the same series of events, the amendment should be granted.
Civil Procedure — Amendment of Pleadings — Claims Arising from Subsequent Events
Where a party sues under a claim which is later overtaken by events and wishes to alter that claim to take into account developments that have happened since institution of the suit, this should not be prevented provided the subsequent developments still fall within the same facts or series of events constituting the basis of the initial claim.
Civil Procedure — Amendment of Pleadings — Timing and Delay
Amendment ought to be pursued at the earliest available opportunity. However, practical realities including disruptions occasioned by the COVID-19 pandemic and lockdowns may justify delay in bringing an application for amendment where the applicant demonstrates that gathering evidence to support the proposed amendments would have taken time and been made more difficult by such circumstances.

Legislation cited (3)

Cases cited (10)

  • Biiso v Tibamwenda [1991] HCB 92
  • Eastern Bakery v Castelino [1958] EA 461
  • Nsereko v Taibu Lubega [1982] HCB 51
  • Wamanyi v Interfreight Forwarders (U) Limited [1990] II KALR 67
  • Gaso Transport Services Limited v Martin Adala Obene (Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 4 of 1994)
  • Moss v Malings (1886) 33 CHD 603
  • Nambi v Bunyoro General Merchants [1974] HCB 124
  • GP Jani Properties v Dar-es-Salaam City Council [1966] EA 281
  • British India General Insurance Company Limited v GM Pharma and Company [1966] EA 172
  • David Acar v Acar Aciro [1982] HCB 60

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Bakalumba Enterprises Ltd v Uganda Breweries Ltd & Anor (Miscellaneous Application No. 817 of 2021) [2022] UGCommC 41 (28 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.