Wakilii

Dr. Lugero Charles v Ssegawa Samuel Brian and Another (Miscellaneous Application No. 1336 of 2025)

High Court · [2025] UGHCLD 320 · 2025 Application Partly Allowed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Application for leave to amend counter claim and consolidation of counter claims arising from two related civil suits
Decision
Application for amendment dismissed; consolidation of counter claims granted

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 Land Division partially granted the application. The court refused leave to amend the counter claim in Civil Suit No. 181 of 2024 on the ground that the proposed amendments introduced a new cause of action distinct from the original pleadings and would be prejudicial to the respondents. However, the court granted the consolidation of the counter claims in Civil Suit No. 181 of 2024 and Civil Suit No. 200 of 2025, finding that both counter claims sought similar reliefs involving the same parties and subject matter.

Outcome

Application for amendment dismissed; consolidation of counter claims granted

Facts

The applicant, Dr. Lugero Charles, is the registered proprietor of land at Kibuga Mulago Block 5 Plot 1371 where he obtained building permits to construct a hospital. The first respondent filed Civil Suit No. 181 of 2024 against the applicant alleging unlawful eviction of tenants and claiming ownership of the suit land. The applicant filed a written statement of defence and was granted leave to file a counter claim. The respondents subsequently withdrew Civil Suit No. 181 of 2024 and filed a new suit, Civil Suit No. 200 of 2025, against KCCA and other parties on the same subject matter. The applicant filed a counter claim in that suit as well. The respondents executed a consent judgment in Civil Suit No. 200 of 2025 admitting encroachment on the applicant's land and undertaking to demolish the encroaching portion. The applicant then sought leave to amend his counter claim in Civil Suit No. 181 of 2024 and to consolidate both counter claims.

Issues

  1. Whether the application establishes sufficient grounds for the amendment of counter claim in Civil Suit No. 181 of 2024?
  2. Whether the applicant establishes sufficient grounds for consolidation of Civil Suit No. 181 of 2024 and Civil Suit No. 200 of 2025?

Orders

  • The application does not disclose sufficient grounds for amendment of the counter claim in Civil Suit No. 181 of 2024.
  • The counter claim in Civil Suit No. 181 of 2024 is hereby consolidated with the counter claim in Civil Suit No. 200 of 2025.
  • Each party to bear its own costs.

Rules and key headnotes

Civil Procedure — Amendment of Pleadings — Principles Governing Grant of Leave
An amendment to pleadings should not work injustice to the other side; an injury that can be compensated by costs is not treated as an injustice; multiplicity of proceedings should be avoided; amendments made mala fide should not be granted; and no amendment should be allowed where expressly or impliedly prohibited by law.
Civil Procedure — Amendment of Pleadings — Introduction of New Cause of Action
Where a proposed amendment introduces a totally new cause of action different from the original pleadings, the amendment should be disallowed by the court as it would be prejudicial to the opposite party.
Civil Procedure — Consolidation of Suits — Principles and Justification
Courts must as much as possible avoid the multiplicity of suits. Where two or more suits involve the same parties, arise from the same cause of action, and seek similar reliefs, consolidation should be granted for purposes of determining liability and ensuring speedy disposal.

Legislation cited (6)

Cases cited (6)

  • Gaso Transport Services (Bus) Ltd v Martin Adala Obene (1990-94)
  • City Aluminium and Glass Services Ltd v Barclays Bank Uganda Ltd (Miscellaneous Application No. 884 of 2020)
  • Mulowooza Brothers v N. Shah & Co Limited (Civil Appeal No. 26 of 2010)
  • Idii Ssengoba v Peter Ssozi and 4 Others (Miscellaneous Application No. 708 of 2019)
  • Prince Balera George and 71 Others v Attorney General (High Court Miscellaneous Application No. 176 of 2017)
  • Mohan Musisi Kiwanuka v Asha Chand (Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 14 of 2002)

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Dr._Lugero_Charles_v_Ssegawa_Samuel_Brian_and_Another_(Miscellaneous_Application_No._1336_of_2025)_[2025]_UGHCLD_320_(30_September_2025)
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.