Gonget v Tuhairwe & Another (Miscellaneous Application 2898 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.
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
Court granted leave to amend plaint, holding that additional particulars of fraud do not introduce a new cause of action but rather determine real questions in controversy. The limitation period does not bar fraud claims once brought to the court's attention. Amendment made eight years after suit filing does not prejudice respondents where hearing has not commenced and prejudice is curable by costs. Applicant ordered to bear costs.
Outcome
Application granted with directions for filing amended plaint and further pre-trial processes
Facts
The applicant obtained a loan of UGX 5,000,000 from the 2nd respondent and deposited the certificate of title to her land as security. When she failed to pay the loan, she attempted to communicate with the 2nd respondent to settle the outstanding balance but the 2nd respondent allegedly concealed the balance and declined to acknowledge payments. The applicant later discovered that her title had been fraudulently transferred to the 1st respondent. She filed a civil suit in 2016 claiming fraud and seeking cancellation of the transfer. Eight years later, through new counsel, she applied to amend the plaint to include particulars that the loan transaction was illegal due to absence of a valid money lending license and to request the court to reopen the transaction to determine the actual amount owed.
Issues
- Whether leave should be granted to the applicant to amend her plaint in Civil Suit No. 0666 of 2023.
- Whether the proposed amendment introduces a new cause of action.
- Whether the proposed amendment is barred by the law of limitation.
- Whether the amendment will prejudice the respondents.
Orders
- The Applicant is granted leave to amend her plaint.
- The Applicant should file and serve its amended plaint within ten (10) working days from the date of this ruling.
- The Respondents, if they so wish, should file a reply to the amended plaint and serve the same within ten (10) days from the date of service of the amended plaint.
- Once the directions above are complied with, the parties should observe the necessary pre-trial processes with the view of having the suit heard and determined.
- The Applicant shall bear the costs of this application.
Rules and key headnotes
Legislation cited (5)
Cases cited (10)
- Molowoza Brothers Ltd v N. Shah & Co. Ltd (Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 26 of 2010)
- Gaso Transport Services (Bus) Ltd v Obene (1990-1994) EA 88
- Eastern Bakery v Castelinov (1958) EA 451
- Musoke Mike v Kalumba James (Revision Cause No. 09 of 2019)
- Harrison C. Kariuki v Blue Shield Insurance Co. Ltd (no citation provided) [2006] eKLR
- Sibamanyo Estates Limited v Equity Bank Uganda Limited & Others (High Court Miscellaneous Application No. 414 of 2022)
- Sarah Nyakato v Lin Jeng Liang & 5 Others (Miscellaneous Application No. 316 of 2022)
- Makula International v His Eminence Cardinal Emmanuel Nsubuga (1982) HCB 11
- Harry Ssempa v Kambagambire David (High Court Civil Suit No. 408 of 2014)
- Lyamuleme David v Attorney General (Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 4 of 2013)
Full judgment
The original judgment as reported. Read the original PDF before relying on any passage.