Wakilii

Bayonga Jackie v Festo Ivaibi (Miscellaneous Application No. 1690 of 2025)

High Court · [2025] UGCOMMC 418 · 2025 Application Granted AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Application for leave to amend plaint in pending summary suit arising from alleged business investment and loan agreement
Decision
Leave to amend plaint granted; filing and service of amended pleadings to abide outcome of related application

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 the plaint to include detailed particulars of the claim and supporting documents that were inadvertently omitted. The court held that the proposed amendments provided further particulars of how the claim arose and did not alter the cause of action. The amendments were necessary to determine the real issues in controversy and avoid multiplicity of suits.

Outcome

Leave to amend plaint granted; filing and service of amended pleadings to abide outcome of related application

Facts

In 2019, the Applicant entered into a business relationship with the Respondent, investing USD 2,392,500 into the Respondent's company, Mitrosoft Corporation Ltd. The Respondent issued receipts and guarantee agreements. On 9 February 2024, the parties executed a Memorandum of Understanding wherein the Respondent undertook to repay USD 2,392,500 (equivalent to UGX 9,248,000,000) within four months. To guarantee payment, the Respondent introduced Joanne Nanteza Ivaibi who issued cheques that subsequently bounced. The Applicant filed Civil Suit No. 533 of 2025 seeking recovery but the original plaint inadvertently omitted certain facts and supporting documents. The Applicant then sought leave to amend the plaint to include these particulars.

Issues

  1. Whether the Applicant should be granted leave to amend the plaint in Civil Suit No. 533 of 2025?
  2. What remedies are available to the parties?

Orders

  • The Applicant is granted leave to amend the plaint in Civil Suit No. 533 of 2025 by providing further and better particulars and supporting documents regarding the claim.
  • The filing and serving of the amended plaint and the amended written statement of defence shall abide the outcome in Miscellaneous Application No. 1692 of 2025.
  • Costs of the application shall be in the cause.

Rules and key headnotes

Civil Procedure — Amendment of Pleadings — Discretion of Court — Principles Governing Grant of Leave
The court has discretionary power under Order 6 rule 19 of the Civil Procedure Rules to allow amendment of pleadings at any stage of proceedings to determine the real questions in controversy between the parties, provided the amendment does not work injustice on the other side, avoids multiplicity of proceedings, is not made in bad faith, and is not prohibited by law.
Civil Procedure — Amendment of Pleadings — Addition of Particulars — Distinction from Change of Cause of Action
Where a plaint discloses a cause of action but is deficient in particulars, the plaint may be amended to include the particulars. The addition of detailed particulars explaining how a claim arose does not alter or change the cause of action where the fundamental basis of the claim remains the same.
Civil Procedure — Amendment of Pleadings — Prejudice to Opposing Party — Right to Amend Defence
Where one party is allowed to amend pleadings, the other party must be accorded an opportunity to amend their pleadings in light of the amendments. The mere fact that a party has already filed a defence does not constitute prejudice sufficient to refuse leave to amend.

Legislation cited (6)

Cases cited (6)

  • Sarah Nyakato v Lin Jeng Liang Aka Lin Jeff & Others (High Court Miscellaneous Application No. 316 of 2022)
  • Damas Mulagwe v Bank of Uganda (High Court Miscellaneous Application No. 27 of 2022)
  • Banco Arabe Espanol v Bank of Uganda (Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 8 of 1998)
  • Eastern Bakery v Castelino [1958] 1 EA 461
  • Gaso Transport Services (Bus) Ltd v Martin Adala Obene (Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 4 of 1994)
  • Tororo Cement Co. Ltd v Frokina International Ltd (Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 2 of 2001)

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Bayonga Jackie v Festo Ivaibi (Miscellaneous Application No. 1690 of 2025) [2025] UGCommC 418 (13 November 2025)
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.