Wakilii

Francis Ishanga and Another v Bank of Baroda (U) Ltd and Others [2026] UGHC 799

High Court · 2026 Application Dismissed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Application to the High Court for leave to appeal to the Court of Appeal against an interlocutory ruling refusing leave to amend an amended plaint, with a request for stay of proceedings in the main suit
Decision
Application for leave to appeal dismissed with costs; main suit (HCCS 22 of 2024) to proceed to hearing

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 dismissed an application for leave to appeal against its earlier refusal of a second amendment of an already amended plaint. It held that the proper provision for such an application to the High Court is Order 44 Rule 1(2)-(4) of the Civil Procedure Rules, Rule 40(2)(a) of the Court of Appeal Rules Directions relating chiefly to timelines. Leave will generally be refused where an applicant is guilty of dilatory conduct; repeated applications to amend the plaint in a backlog suit evidenced such conduct. The principles in Gaso Transport and Mulowooza were correctly applied, and the intended appeal was unnecessary because suitable remedies could be granted under section 37 of the Judicature Act.

Outcome

Application for leave to appeal dismissed with costs; main suit (HCCS 22 of 2024) to proceed to hearing

Facts

The applicants sued the respondents in Civil Suit No. 22 of 2024, a dispute arising from a lender-borrower banking relationship and the disposal of mortgaged property. In April 2024 the applicants obtained leave to amend their plaint and filed an amended plaint on 16 May 2024. They later filed Miscellaneous Application No. 22 of 2025 seeking leave to amend the amended plaint a second time. That application was dismissed by ruling delivered on 22 January 2026, the court finding that the proposed amendments introduced a new cause of action and that suitable remedies could still be granted within the existing cause of action. The applicants then sought leave to appeal that ruling to the Court of Appeal and a stay of proceedings in the main suit, relying on Rule 40(2)(a) of the Judicature (Court of Appeal Rules) Directions. The first respondent, a financial institution, opposed the application, asserting bad faith and deliberate delay, and averring that the continued pendency of the suit obliged it to make provisions for a non-performing facility from its own funds.

Issues

  1. Whether an application to the High Court for leave to appeal to the Court of Appeal against an interlocutory order is properly brought under Rule 40(2)(a) of the Judicature (Court of Appeal Rules) Directions rather than Order 44 Rule 1(2), (3) & (4) of the Civil Procedure Rules.
  2. Whether the applicants were guilty of dilatory conduct disentitling them to leave to appeal.
  3. Whether the court, in refusing a second amendment of an already amended plaint, misapplied the principles governing amendment of pleadings.
  4. Whether the intended appeal was necessary given the court's power to grant suitable remedies under section 37 of the Judicature Act.
  5. Whether the expeditious disposal of lender-borrower suits and financial sector stability weighed against granting leave to appeal.

Orders

  • The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.
  • Costs of the application awarded to the Respondents.

Rules and key headnotes

Civil Procedure — Appeals from Interlocutory Orders — Proper Provision for Application for Leave to Appeal to the High Court
An application to the High Court for leave to appeal to the Court of Appeal against an order not appealable as of right under Order 44 Rule 1(1) of the Civil Procedure Rules must be brought under Order 44 Rule 1(2), (3) and (4) of those Rules; Rule 40(2)(a) of the Judicature (Court of Appeal Rules) Directions relates principally to the timelines for making such an application.
Civil Procedure — Leave to Appeal — Dilatory Conduct as a Ground of Refusal
Leave to appeal will generally be refused where the applicant is guilty of dilatory conduct, that is conduct deliberately tending or intended to cause delay, gain time or put off a decision, which indicates that the application is not pursued in good faith.
Civil Procedure — Amendment of Pleadings — Repeated Applications to Amend an Already Amended Plaint
A party cannot endlessly apply to amend its plaint; where leave to amend has already been granted and exercised, a further application to amend the amended plaint may properly be refused, particularly where the desired clarification of the cause of action can be achieved through witness statements at the trial.
Civil Procedure — Amendment of Pleadings — Consistency of Gaso Transport and Mulowooza Principles
The conditions governing amendment of pleadings stated in Gaso Transport Services (Bus) Ltd v Obene are consistent with Mulowooza v Shah & Co Ltd: amendments should be freely allowed to determine the real question in controversy unless they would cause an injustice not compensable by costs or would introduce a distinct cause of action in place of the original one.
Civil Procedure — Necessity of Appeal — Court's Power to Grant Suitable Remedies under Judicature Act s.37
An intended appeal against refusal of an amendment is unnecessary where the court retains power under section 37 of the Judicature Act to grant suitable remedies in the interest of justice within the framework of the cause of action already pleaded.
Banking & Finance — Lender-Borrower Litigation — Expedition and Credit Provisioning Obligations
Because Regulation 11 of the Financial Institutions (Credit Classification and Provisioning) Regulations 2005 obliges a financial institution to maintain specific provisions from its own funds for non-performing credit facilities, suits arising from a lender-borrower relationship ought to be heard expeditiously in the interest of justice and financial sector stability, and interlocutory applications that prolong such suits will be viewed unfavourably.

Legislation cited (9)

Cases cited (5)

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Francis Ishanga and Another v Bank of Baroda (U) Ltd and Others [2026] UGHC 799 (3 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.