Wakilii

Bethel Lunize Kigongo v Ssemwanga Joseph and Others (Misc. Application No. 1013 of 2024)

High Court · [2025] UGCOMMC 198 · 2025 Application Granted AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Application for leave to amend plaint and for substituted service arising from Civil Suit No. 049 of 2020
Decision
Application granted; applicant permitted to amend plaint and serve by substituted service

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 applicant leave to amend the plaint in Civil Suit No. 49 of 2020 to cure deficiencies in the original pleading, specifically inadequate particularization of fraud and illegality concerning disputed land. The court also authorized substituted service of the amended plaint on the respondents by publication in newspapers, finding that personal service had proved impracticable due to the respondents' unavailability and inaccessibility.

Outcome

Application granted; applicant permitted to amend plaint and serve by substituted service

Facts

The applicant instituted Civil Suit No. 49 of 2020 against the respondents through his former legal representatives, M/S Byamugisha, Lubega & Co. Advocates. Upon engaging new counsel, M/S Buwule & Mayiga Advocates, critical deficiencies were identified in the original plaint, including inadequate particularization of allegations of fraud and illegalities pertaining to land comprised in Busiro Block 383 Plot 414 at Kitende. The applicant contended that the former advocates' failure to properly plead essential particulars of fraud and illegality constituted a miscarriage of justice. The applicant sought leave to amend the plaint to cure these material defects and also sought an order for substituted service, averring that efforts to serve the respondents personally had consistently been met with difficulties due to their apparent unavailability and inaccessibility. The respondents did not appear at hearings and filed no affidavit in reply.

Issues

  1. Whether the applicant can be granted leave to amend the plaint.
  2. Whether the amended plaint can be served by way of substituted service.

Orders

  • The Applicant is hereby granted leave to amend his Plaint in HCCS No.49 of 2020.
  • The applicant should file and serve the amended plaint within 15 days on all defendants in Civil Suit No.49 of 2020 from date of receipt of this ruling.
  • The Applicant be permitted to serve the amended plaint to the Respondents/Defendants by way of substituted service.
  • The Defendants should file their amended written statements of defence within 21 days from the date they are served with the amended plaint.
  • No orders at costs.

Rules and key headnotes

Civil Procedure — Amendment of Pleadings — Discretion of Court — Principles Governing Grant of Leave
Under Order 6 Rule 19 of the Civil Procedure Rules, the court has wide discretionary powers to permit amendment of pleadings at any stage of the proceedings to enable determination of the real questions in controversy between the parties, provided the amendment does not work injustice to the other side, does not encourage multiplicity of proceedings, is not made mala fide, and is not prohibited by law.
Civil Procedure — Amendment of Pleadings — Curing Defective Pleadings — Particulars of Fraud
Where a plaint fails to adequately particularize allegations of fraud and illegality due to the negligence of former legal representatives, the court may grant leave to amend the plaint to cure such material defects and enable the suit to proceed to a just and logical determination.
Civil Procedure — Service of Process — Substituted Service — When Permitted
Under Order 5 Rule 18 of the Civil Procedure Rules, where the court is satisfied that for any reason the summons cannot be served in the ordinary way, the court shall order substituted service by such means as the court thinks fit, and such substituted service shall be as effectual as if it had been made on the defendant personally.

Legislation cited (7)

Cases cited (1)

  • Gaso Transport Services (Bus) Ltd v Martin Adala Obene (Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 4 of 1994)

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Bethel Lunize Kigongo v Ssemwanga Joseph and Others (Misc. Application No. 1013 of 2024) [2025] UGCommC 198 (30 June 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.