Bang Cheng Investment Co. Limited v Roko Construction Co. Limited (Miscellaneous Application 2427 of 2023)
Observed later treatment
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 Commercial Division held that an application to amend a plaint to correct the respondent's name from Roko Construction Co. Ltd to Roko Construction Limited was properly brought under Order 6 Rules 19 and 31 of the Civil Procedure Rules. The error was a misnomer rather than a suit against a non-existent party, capable of being cured by amendment where a reasonable person would conclude the drafters intended to refer to the correctly named entity. Leave to amend was granted.
Outcome
Application granted; applicant permitted to amend plaint to correct respondent's name
Facts
The applicant filed Civil Suit No. 801 of 2021 against Roko Construction Co. Ltd, seeking payment of outstanding sums. The applicant subsequently applied to amend the plaint to correct a typographical error in the respondent's name, which should have been Roko Construction Limited. The respondent opposed, arguing it was a non-existent party and could not be sued. Evidence showed the parties had exchanged documents using various iterations of the name, including receipts addressed to Roko Construction Co. Ltd and Roko Construction Limited, which the respondent had acknowledged without objection.
Issues
- Whether the application was brought under the wrong law.
- Whether an application brought against a non-existent party can be cured.
- Whether the applicant should be granted leave to amend the pleadings.
Orders
- Application granted.
- Costs to abide by the main cause.
Rules and key headnotes
Legislation cited (7)
Cases cited (10)
- Wasswa Primo v Moulders (U) Limited (HCM No. 685 of 2017)
- Fort Hall Bakery Supply Company v Fredick Muigai Wangoe (1959) EA 474
- AC Yafeng Construction Limited v The Registered Trustees of Living Word Assembly Church (MA No. 0001 of 2021)
- Trust Ventures Ltd v Powerfoam (U) Ltd (Civil Suit No. 669 of 2017)
- AC Yafeng Construction Limited v Registered Trustees of Living Word Assembly Church and Anor
- J. B. Kholi & Others v Bachulal Popatlal [1964] EA 219
- Davies v Elsby Brothers Ltd [1960] 3 All ER
- Gaso Transport Services (Bus) Ltd v Obene (SCCA No. 4 of 1994) [1990-1994] 1 EA 88
- Eastern Bakery v Castelino [1958] 1 EA 461
- Mulowooza & Brothers Ltd v Shah & Co. Ltd (SCCA No. 26 of 2010)
Cases citing this judgment (1)
How later Ugandan judgments in the Wakilii corpus have cited this case. Treatment labels come from Sequitur — Uganda’s citator — each backed by a verbatim span from the citing judgment, and are not an assertion that this case is, or is not, good law.
Full judgment
The original judgment as reported. Read the original PDF before relying on any passage.