Ddamulira v Mugabi (Misc. Application No.0433 of 2017)
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
Application to amend plaint to join Kezimbira Investments Ltd dismissed. Court held the proposed amendment barred by limitation under Section 5 of the Limitation Act as more than 12 years had elapsed since the Applicant's alleged cause of action accrued. Applicant was a director of the company sought to be added and had knowledge of all material facts since 2000, yet filed suit only in 2015. Amendment also found to be mala fide as Applicant failed to disclose his role as director and participant in the transactions complained of.
Outcome
Application for leave to amend plaint dismissed with costs
Facts
The Applicant moved by chamber summons for leave to amend the plaint in Civil Suit No. 170 of 2015 to join Kezimbira Investments Ltd as a party. The Respondent opposed the application, asserting that the Applicant was himself a shareholder and director in Kezimbira Investments Ltd and had consented to the sale of the suit land to the Respondent. The Respondent's evidence showed that Kezimbira Investments Ltd was registered on the certificate of title by 2000, the Applicant was a director who participated in acquiring the land and having it registered in the company's name, and the Applicant signed off on the sale to the Respondent. The suit was filed in 2015, more than 12 years after the company was registered on title.
Issues
- Whether the proposed amendment to add Kezimbira Investments Ltd as a party is barred by limitation under Section 5 of the Limitation Act.
- Whether the proposed amendment is made in bad faith or contains falsehoods that should disentitle the Applicant to the amendment.
Orders
- Application dismissed.
- Costs awarded to the Respondent.
Rules and key headnotes
Legislation cited (1)
Cases cited (2)
- Gaso Transport Services (Bus) Ltd v Obene [1994] EA 88
- Makula International v His Eminence Cardinal Nsubuga (1982) HCB 11
Full judgment
The original judgment as reported. Read the original PDF before relying on any passage.