Wakilii

Basirika Merab and Others v Sekilevu Peradin and Others [2026] UGHC 296

High Court · 2026 Application Granted AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Application for leave to amend pleadings arising from civil suit for trespass and intermeddling
Decision
Application granted with leave to amend 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 the applicants leave to amend their plaint to include a claim for special damages arising from the destruction of trees and crops by the 6th respondent. The court held that amendments should be freely allowed where they do not cause injustice to the other party, and that special damages must be specifically pleaded. Denying the amendment would result in a failure of justice and necessitate a multiplicity of suits.

Outcome

Application granted with leave to amend pleadings

Facts

The applicants instituted Civil Suit No. 69 of 2024 for trespass and intermeddling regarding land in Luteete village, Nakaseke district. In August 2024, after the suit was filed, the 6th respondent allegedly cut down trees and destroyed crops on the suit land, an incident reported to Nakaseke Central Police Station. The applicants obtained agricultural reports valuing the damage at UGX 3,479,107 and UGX 4,784,000. They were advised by FIDA Uganda that special damages must be specifically pleaded and sought leave to amend their plaint to include this claim.

Issues

  1. Whether the applicants should be granted leave to amend their pleadings to include a claim for special damages.

Orders

  • Leave is granted to the Applicants to amend their plaint.
  • The Amended Plaint shall be filed and served within fourteen (14) days.
  • The Respondents shall file an Amended Written Statement of Defence within fourteen (14) days from the date of service.
  • Costs of this application shall be in the cause.

Rules and key headnotes

Civil Procedure — Amendment of Pleadings — Principles Governing Grant of Leave
Amendments to pleadings should be freely allowed at any stage if they can be made without causing injustice to the other party that cannot be compensated by costs, provided the amendment does not introduce a new cause of action or radically alter the suit.
Civil Procedure — Special Damages — Requirement of Specific Pleading
Special damages must be specifically pleaded and strictly proved. A court has no jurisdiction to award special damages if they are not explicitly listed in the pleadings, and denying an amendment to include such damages where they arise from the same facts would result in a failure of justice.
Civil Procedure — Amendment of Pleadings — Avoidance of Multiplicity of Suits
Where a new claim arises from the same facts as an existing suit, allowing an amendment to include that claim serves the interest of justice by avoiding multiplicity of proceedings and enabling the court to determine all matters in controversy between the parties finally and completely.

Legislation cited (6)

Cases cited (15)

  • Bakalumba Enterprises Ltd v Uganda Breweries Ltd & Stanbic Bank Ltd (Miscellaneous Application No. 817 of 2021)
  • Nsereko v Taibu Lubega (1982) HCB 51
  • Gaso Transport Services Ltd v Martin Adala Obene (Supreme Court Criminal Appeal No. 4 of 1994)
  • Johnson Akol Omunyokol v Attorney General (Application No. 0003 of 2016)
  • Eastern Bakery v Castelino (1958) 1 EA 467
  • Assa Abloy (U) Ltd v John Mboizi (Miscellaneous Application No. 184 of 2021)
  • Sarah Nyakato v Lin Jeng Liang & 5 Others (Miscellaneous Application No. 316 of 2022)
  • Hahn v Singh (1985) HCB 71
  • 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
  • Mashwe Mya v Maung Po Hnaung (1927) 48 IA 274
  • Raleigh vs Goschen (1898) 73,87
  • 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.

Basirika Merab and Others v Sekilevu Peradin and Others 2026 UGHC 296 (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.