Wakilii

CMA CGM Uganda Ltd v Portside Fish Company Ltd (Miscellaneous Application No. 2790 of 2025)

High Court · [2026] UGCOMMC 98 · 2026 Application Granted AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Application for leave to amend written statement of defence in pending civil suit
Decision
Application granted; leave to amend defence allowed; related suit stayed

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 written statement of defence to include facts concerning the identity of the carrier shown on the original bill of lading. The court held that the amendment was necessary to determine the real questions in controversy between the parties, would not prejudice the respondent as the hearing had not commenced, and would avoid multiplicity of suits. The court also stayed a related suit in the Chief Magistrate's Court pending determination of the main suit.

Outcome

Application granted; leave to amend defence allowed; related suit stayed

Facts

The Respondent instituted Civil Suit No. 1480 of 2024 against the Applicant for breach of contract and negligence in transporting frozen fish from Kampala to Sharjah, claiming USD 148,800 in damages for spoiled goods. The Applicant filed a defence denying liability. During preparation of pre-trial documents, the Applicant's counsel reviewed the original bill of lading and discovered that the carrier named on the bill was CMA CGM Societe Anonyme (a French entity), not CMA CGM Uganda Ltd (the Applicant). The Applicant sought leave to amend its defence to plead that it acted only as an agent, not as the carrier. The Respondent opposed, arguing the bill of lading had been attached to the plaint from the outset, the application was delayed, and the Applicant had held itself out as the carrier by issuing invoices and instituting its own suit for freight charges in the Chief Magistrate's Court.

Issues

  1. Whether the Applicant has raised sufficient grounds to warrant the grant of leave to amend the written statement of defence in Civil Suit No. 1480 of 2024.
  2. What remedies are available to the parties.

Orders

  • The Applicant is granted leave to amend its written statement of defence in Civil Suit No. 1480 of 2024, by adding facts concerning the carrier in the original bill of lading.
  • The Applicant shall file and serve its amended written statement of defence within fifteen (15) days from the date of this Ruling.
  • The Respondent shall file and serve its reply to the amended written statement of defence within fifteen (15) days from the date of service of the amended written statement of defence.
  • Civil Suit No. 25 of 2025 in the Chief Magistrate's Court of Nakawa at Nakawa is hereby stayed pending the determination of Civil Suit No. 1480 of 2024.
  • 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 the proceedings to determine the real issues 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 — Delay — Effect on Application
Delay in bringing an application to amend pleadings is not in itself a ground for refusing the amendment unless the respondent can show prejudice. Although delay gives rise to an inference of bad faith, it does not bar an amendment where the hearing has not commenced and no prejudice is demonstrated.
Civil Procedure — Amendment of Pleadings — Material Facts — Necessity for Just Determination
Courts should be more willing to permit the correction of defects in a pleading rather than render judgment in ignorance of facts that ought to be known before rights are definitively decided. An amendment that introduces material facts necessary for the resolution of controversies between the parties should be allowed to avoid multiplicity of suits.
Civil Procedure — Stay of Proceedings — Related Suits — Avoidance of Contradictory Decisions
Where related suits arising from the same transaction are pending in different courts, the court may invoke Section 98 of the Civil Procedure Act to stay one suit pending determination of the other to avoid contradictory decisions.

Legislation cited (4)

Cases cited (5)

  • 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)
  • Johnson Akol Omunyokol v Attorney General of Uganda (EACJ Application No. 3 of 2016)
  • Trans-Drakensberg Bank Ltd v Combined Engineering 1967 (3) SA (D)
  • Namusisi Yozefina v David Kikaawa (Miscellaneous Application No. 1595 of 2018)

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

CMA CGM Uganda Ltd v Portside Fish Company Ltd (Miscellaneous Application No. 2790 of 2025) [2026] UGCommC 98 (24 March 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.