Wakilii

Bisereko v Kyenjojo District Local Government (Miscellaneous Application No. 59 of 2022)

High Court · [2022] UGHC 64 · 2022 Application Granted AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Application for leave to amend pleadings in ongoing civil suit arising from employment dispute
Decision
Leave to amend granted; applicant to file amended plaint within 7 days

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 amended plaint for a second time, allowing him to introduce new prayers based on unlawful termination and retirement while abandoning prayers for gratuity and terminal benefits. The court held that the proposed amendment did not introduce a new cause of action but merely new prayers arising from existing facts, and that any prejudice to the respondent could be compensated by costs. Costs of the application were awarded to the respondent to remedy the applicant's conduct in delaying proceedings.

Outcome

Leave to amend granted; applicant to file amended plaint within 7 days

Facts

The applicant filed Civil Suit No. 030 of 2018 against the respondent claiming breach of employment contract, salary arrears, general damages, interest and costs. In 2019, the applicant obtained leave to amend the plaint and filed an amended plaint in February 2020, to which the respondent filed a defence in March 2020. The court issued directions for filing witness statements and a Joint Scheduling Memorandum to commence hearing. Before hearing commenced, the applicant brought a second application for leave to amend, seeking to add prayers for special damages based on alleged unlawful termination and retirement, while abandoning earlier claims for gratuity, pension, and terminal benefits. The respondent opposed the application, arguing it was brought in bad faith, constituted an afterthought, and would cause financial prejudice. The applicant had changed advocates multiple times and had not complied with the court's earlier directions to proceed with hearing.

Issues

  1. Whether the applicant should be granted leave to amend the amended plaint in Civil Suit No. 030 of 2018 to introduce new prayers based on the existing cause of action.

Orders

  • Application granted with costs to the respondent.
  • The applicant is granted leave to amend the plaint in Civil Suit No. 030 of 2018 within 7 days from the date of this ruling.
  • Any response to the amended plaint shall be filed and served within 14 days thereafter.

Rules and key headnotes

Amendment of Pleadings — Power of Court — Discretion
The court has wide and extensive powers to allow amendment of pleadings at any time under Section 100 of the Civil Procedure Act, designed to prevent the failure of justice due to procedural errors and to enable determination of the true substantive merits of the case.
Amendment of Pleadings — New Prayers versus New Cause of Action
An amendment that introduces new prayers based on an existing cause of action and existing set of facts does not constitute the introduction of a new cause of action and may properly be allowed.
Amendment of Pleadings — Prejudice and Compensation by Costs
Where any prejudice to the opposing party from an amendment can be compensated by an award of costs, such prejudice does not constitute injustice sufficient to refuse the amendment.
Amendment of Pleadings — Principles Governing Exercise of Discretion
In exercising discretion to allow amendments, the court must consider: (i) whether the amendment would work injustice to the other side that cannot be compensated by costs; (ii) whether the amendment avoids multiplicity of proceedings; (iii) whether the application is brought mala fide; and (iv) whether the amendment is prohibited by law, including limitation of actions.

Legislation cited (5)

Cases cited (6)

  • Biiso v Tibamwenda [1991] HCB 92
  • Eastern Bakery v Castelino [1958] EA 461
  • Nsereko v Taibu Lubega [1982] HCB 51
  • Wamanyi v Interfreight Forwarders (U) Limited [1990] KALR 67
  • Gaso Transport Services Limited v Martin Adala Obene (Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 4 of 1994)
  • Matagala Vincent v URA (High Court Miscellaneous Application No. 25 of 2013)

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Bisereko v Kyenjojo District Local Government (Miscellaneous Application No. 59 of 2022) [2022] UGHC 64 (23 November 2022)
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.