Coil Limited v Andama (Miscellaneous Application 95 of 2023)

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.

Holding

The court dismissed an application seeking leave to amend a memorandum of appeal to include a ground challenging judgment on admission. The applicant company had admitted liability through its counsel in the lower court and agreed the matter proceed to assessment of damages. The court held that allowing amendment after such clear admission would be made in bad faith and would drag the matter further without justification. The application did not meet the established test for exercising judicial discretion to permit amendments.

Outcome

Application for leave to amend memorandum of appeal dismissed

Facts

Coil Limited filed Civil Appeal No. 002 of 2023 against Andama with a memorandum of appeal filed on 24 April 2023 before receiving the full certified record from the lower court. On 14 December 2022 in the magistrate's court, Coil Limited's counsel Niwakanika Chombe admitted liability for the accident that caused injuries to the respondent and offered settlement of UGX 10,000,000 which was declined. The trial magistrate entered judgment on admission and adjourned to assess quantum of damages. After receiving the certified record in July 2023, Coil Limited sought to amend its memorandum of appeal to add a ground challenging the judgment on admission, claiming it never instructed counsel to admit liability. The respondent opposed, arguing the admission was clear, unambiguous and made by counsel during trial.

Issues

1. Whether the Applicant has satisfied all grounds to warrant grant of leave to amend the Memorandum of Appeal filed before this honourable Court.

Orders

• Application dismissed with costs being the cause.

Rules and key headnotes

Legislation cited (9)

• Judicature Act s.33
• Civil Procedure Act s.98
• Civil Procedure Rules Order 43 rule 1
• Civil Procedure Rules Order 43 rule 2
• Civil Procedure Rules Order 43 rule 22(1)(b)
• Civil Procedure Rules Order 52 rule 1
• Civil Procedure Rules Order 52 rule 2
• Civil Procedure Rules Order 52 rule 3
• Civil Procedure Rules Order 13 rule 6

Cases cited (3)

• Cropper v Smith (1883) 26 Ch D 700
• Formula Feeds Ltd and 3 Others v KCB Bank Ltd (Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 13 of 2020)
• Gaso Transport Services (Bus) Ltd v Martin Adala Obene (Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 4 of 1994)

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