Wakilii

Basirika Merab and Others v Sekilevu Peradin and Others (Miscellaneous Application No. 61 of 2025)

High Court · [2026] UGHC 312 · 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
Leave to amend granted; matter to proceed with 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 pleadings to include a claim for special damages arising from destruction of crops and trees. The court held that amendments should be freely allowed where they do not cause injustice to the other party and serve to determine the real controversy. Special damages must be specifically pleaded and strictly proved. Denying the amendment would preclude recovery even if trespass were proved, resulting in failure of justice. The amendment avoided multiplicity of suits by resolving all matters arising from the same land dispute in one proceeding.

Outcome

Leave to amend granted; matter to proceed with amended pleadings

Facts

The applicants instituted Civil Suit No. 69 of 2024 for trespass and intermeddling regarding land in Luteete village, Kikamulo subcounty, Nakaseke district. In August 2024, after the suit was filed, the 6th respondent allegedly cut down trees and destroyed crops on the suit land. The incident was reported at Nakaseke Central Police Station. The applicants obtained agricultural reports valuing the damaged trees at UGX 4,784,000 and crops at UGX 3,479,107. They were advised by FIDA Uganda that special damages must be specifically pleaded and sought leave to amend their plaint to include this claim. The respondents did not file written submissions opposing the application.

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 from the date of the ruling.
  • 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 distinct cause of action or radically alter the nature of 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, even if the claimant succeeds on the merits of the underlying cause of action.
Civil Procedure — Amendment of Pleadings — Avoidance of Multiplicity of Suits
Where a new claim arises from the same facts and dispute already before the court, allowing amendment to include that claim serves the interest of justice by avoiding multiplicity of suits and enabling the court to determine all matters in controversy between the parties finally and completely in one proceeding.

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. 3 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 (1876) 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 (Miscellaneous Application No. 61 of 2025) [2026] UGHC 312 (8 January 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.