Wakilii

Dei Industries International Ltd and Others v Equity Bank Uganda Limited and Another (Miscellaneous Application No. 1121 of 2025)

High Court · [2026] UGCOMMC 362 · 2026 Application Dismissed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Interlocutory application seeking revocation of ICPAU appointment to nominate auditors and leave to amend plaint in underlying loan dispute suit
Decision
Application dismissed; main suit to proceed to scheduling

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 court dismissed the application seeking to revoke ICPAU's appointment to nominate an audit firm and to amend the plaint. The court held that the application was moot because the audit process had already commenced and the audit report had been submitted. The applicants failed to prove that ICPAU's integrity, objectivity and independence had been compromised. The proposed amendment was prejudicial to the respondents, not made in good faith, and would not serve the interests of justice.

Outcome

Application dismissed; main suit to proceed to scheduling

Facts

The applicants filed a suit against the respondents (banks) seeking an account and reconciliation of loan accounts. By consent order dated 10 December 2024, KPMG was appointed to conduct an audit. The applicants successfully sought to set aside this appointment via Miscellaneous Application 2694 of 2024, and the court on 31 March 2025 directed ICPAU to nominate an independent audit firm. ICPAU nominated M/s Clayton & Company on 15 April 2025. The auditors commenced work, issuing terms of reference on 20 May 2025 and submitted their audit report on 28 June 2025. The applicants filed this application on 22 May 2025, before the audit report was submitted, seeking to revoke ICPAU's appointment on grounds that its integrity and independence had been compromised, and seeking leave to amend the plaint to remove the requirement for an audit.

Issues

  1. Whether the respondent's affidavit in reply is incompetent, incurably defective and ought to be struck out
  2. Whether the instant application is moot and an abuse of court process
  3. Whether the integrity, objectivity and independence of ICPAU to discharge its duty under the court order was compromised
  4. Whether the appointment of ICPAU to nominate an independent audit firm should be revoked
  5. Whether the applicants should be granted leave to amend the plaint

Orders

  • Application dismissed with costs in the cause.
  • Suit fixed for scheduling on 13th November 2026 at 9:00 am.

Rules and key headnotes

Affidavits — Personal Knowledge — Rule 19(3) Civil Procedure Rules
Under Order 19 Rule 3 of the Civil Procedure Rules, a deponent in an interlocutory application may depose on facts within their knowledge provided the source of information is known, or on belief provided the grounds thereof are stated. Personal knowledge means knowledge gained through first-hand observation or experience as distinguished from belief based on what someone else has said.
Abuse of Process — Mootness — Applications Overtaken by Events
An application is moot and amounts to abuse of court process when it seeks to set aside a process which has already been substantially completed. Where a court order directed an institution to nominate an auditor, and the audit process had commenced and the audit report submitted, an application filed before submission seeking to revoke the appointment is overtaken by events and constitutes abuse of process.
Burden of Proof — Allegations of Compromise — Standard of Proof
A party who alleges that the integrity, objectivity and independence of an institution has been compromised bears the burden of proving those allegations on a balance of probabilities under sections 101, 102 and 103 of the Evidence Act. It is not sufficient to merely state allegations by affidavit and submissions without adducing evidence to prove them.
Amendment of Pleadings — Principles Governing Leave to Amend
Leave to amend pleadings is governed by four principles: the amendment should not occasion injustice to the opposite party which cannot be compensated by costs; it should be in the interests of justice and avoid multiplicity of suits; it should be made in good faith; and no amendment should be allowed where expressly or impliedly prohibited by law. An injustice is an injury which cannot be compensated by award of costs.
Amendment of Pleadings — Prejudice to Opposite Party — Bad Faith
An amendment to remove a prayer for audit in a banking dispute where the real issue in controversy is whether money is owed and how much, is prejudicial to the lender. Where a party seeks to amend pleadings repeatedly as and when there are new developments in the suit, this is not made in good faith and would cause undue delay in the disposal of cases.

Legislation cited (15)

Cases cited (16)

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Dei Industries International Ltd and Others v Equity Bank Uganda Limited and Another (Miscellaneous Application No. 1121 of 2025) [2026] UGCommC 362 (29 July 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.