Bisangwa Kasimba Josephat and Another v Diamond Trust Bank (U) Limited and Another (Miscellaneous Application 445 of 2022)
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
Held that the application to amend the plaint was not res judicata. A default judgment varied by consent does not constitute a final determination on the merits. The matters in dispute in the two suits were distinct: the former suit concerned loan recovery while the present suit alleged breach of fiduciary and statutory duties not pleaded or determined in the former suit. The applicants satisfied the Gaso Transport principles for amendment: the amendment would not occasion injustice compensable only by costs, served the interests of justice, was made in good faith, and was not prohibited by law. Application allowed.
Outcome
Application to amend plaint granted; matter to proceed on amended pleadings
Facts
The Applicants filed Civil Suit No. 429 of 2019 against the Respondents alleging breach of statutory duties under the Mortgage Act and seeking declarations that they were not indebted to the Bank. Before the application to amend could be heard, the 1st Respondent filed Civil Suit No. 1005 of 2023 for recovery of a loan facility, which resulted in a default judgment later varied by consent. The Applicants then sought leave to amend their plaint in the original suit after obtaining bank and loan account statements in January 2022 that revealed alleged illegal transactions. The Respondents raised a preliminary objection that the application was res judicata.
Issues
- Whether the application is res judicata by reason of Civil Suit No. 1005 of 2023.
- Whether the Applicants have sufficient grounds for the orders sought.
- What remedies are available to the parties.
Orders
- Preliminary objection dismissed.
- Application allowed.
- The amended plaint be served upon the Respondents within 10 days from the date of this order.
- The Respondents shall file an amended defence within 15 days from the date of service.
- Costs shall be in the cause.
Rules and key headnotes
Legislation cited (4)
Cases cited (4)
- Mansukhlal Ramji Karia and Another v Attorney General and Others (Civil Appeal No. 20 of 2002)
- Gaso Transport Services (Bus) Ltd v Martin Adala Obene (SCCA No. 4 of 1994)
- Muwolooza & Brothers v N. Shah & Co. Ltd (Civil Appeal No. 26 of 2010)
- Eastern Bakery v Castelino [1958] EA 461
Cases citing this judgment (2)
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.