Wakilii

Gulberg Hides & Skins (U) Ltd v Bank of Africa (U) Ltd (Miscellaneous Application No. 773 of 2021)

High Court · [2022] UGCOMMC 47 · 2022 Application Granted AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Interlocutory application for leave to amend plaint arising from civil suit for recovery of money and return of title deeds
Decision
Leave granted to amend plaint; matter to proceed with amended pleadings

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 granted the applicant leave to amend its plaint to reflect developments since filing, including the sale of mortgaged property and additional claims for allegedly fraudulent bank debits. The court held that amendments should be allowed to determine substantive merits and avoid multiplicity of proceedings, provided the other party can be compensated by costs. The proposed amendments did not introduce a fundamentally new cause of action, as fraud had already been pleaded. The court cautioned that the amended plaint must clearly state all amounts claimed and their bases.

Outcome

Leave granted to amend plaint; matter to proceed with amended pleadings

Facts

The applicant instituted suit in 2017 against the respondent bank for recovery of USD 151,716 and return of title deeds for two properties pledged as collateral. The applicant alleged the bank released false account statements. The respondent denied the claim and counterclaimed for USD 71,789 as money due under credit facilities. After filing, developments occurred: one mortgaged property (Seguku) was subject to a separate court finding of an illegal mortgage, and the bank was ordered to refund money paid by a third party purchaser; the second property (Mawokota) was sold by the bank. The applicant sought leave to amend the plaint to withdraw the claim for Seguku property, challenge the sale of Mawokota property or seek its value, clarify the basis of some monetary claims, and include additional claims for allegedly fraudulent transfers totaling USD 34,800 and UGX 190,000,000 that were not known at the time of filing. The respondent opposed, arguing the amendments would introduce a new cause of action and were made in bad faith.

Issues

  1. Whether the Applicant should be granted leave to amend the Plaint in these circumstances.

Orders

  • The Applicant/Plaintiff is granted leave to amend its Plaint in Civil Suit No. 243 of 2017.
  • The Applicant/Plaintiff is hereby directed to file and serve its Amended Plaint within Seven (7) days from the date of this Ruling.
  • Once served, the Respondent/Defendant may file its Amended Written Statement of Defence to the Amended Plaint and Amended Counterclaim within fourteen (14) days from the date of this Ruling.
  • After which the Applicant/Plaintiff shall have Seven (7) days to file its Reply to the Amended Written Statement of Defence and Amended Counterclaim (if any).
  • The costs of this application shall abide by the outcome of the main suit.

Rules and key headnotes

Civil Procedure — Amendment of Pleadings — Guiding Principles — Constitutional Imperative
In deciding whether to grant leave to amend pleadings, courts must bear in mind Article 126(2)(e) of the Constitution which mandates that courts administer substantive justice without undue regard to technicalities.
Civil Procedure — Amendment of Pleadings — Statutory Power — Section 100 Civil Procedure Act
Section 100 of the Civil Procedure Act Cap 71 confers wide power on the court to amend any defect or error in any proceeding at any time and on such terms as to costs as it thinks fit, and all necessary amendments shall be made for the purpose of determining the real question or issue raised.
Civil Procedure — Amendment of Pleadings — Principles from Gaso Transport — Four-Part Test
The principles governing the exercise of discretion in allowing amendments are: (1) the amendment should not work injustice to the other side, and an injury that can be compensated by costs is not treated as injustice; (2) multiplicity of proceedings should be avoided and amendments that avoid multiplicity should be allowed; (3) applications made mala fide should not be granted; (4) no amendment should be allowed where expressly or impliedly prohibited by law.
Civil Procedure — Amendment of Pleadings — Timing — Burden on Late Applications
The later an amendment is applied for, the less likely it is to be readily granted; the more advanced the proceedings and the more changes brought by the proposed amendment, the greater the burden upon the applicant to prove that leave ought to be granted.
Civil Procedure — Amendment of Pleadings — New Cause of Action — When Not Barred
An amendment to challenge the sale of mortgaged property does not introduce a new cause of action where fraud has already been pleaded in the original plaint and the sale occurred after filing as a consequence of the dispute that is already the subject matter of the suit.
Civil Procedure — Amendment of Pleadings — Clarity Required — Particulars of Claim
When amending a plaint to include additional monetary claims, the amended plaint must clearly reflect the exact amounts sought, the basis for each amount, and what effect the additions have on the total amounts claimed.

Legislation cited (5)

Cases cited (10)

  • Biiso v Tibamwenda [1991] HCB 92
  • Eastern Bakery v Castelino [1958] EA 461
  • Nsereko v Taibu Lubega [1982] HCB 51
  • Wamanyi v Interfreight Forwarders (U) Limited [1990] IIKALR 67
  • Gaso Transport Services Limited v Martin Adala Obene (Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 4 of 1994)
  • Moss v Malings (1886) 33 CHD 603
  • Nambi v Bunyoro General Merchants [1974] HCB 124
  • GP Jani Properties v Dar-es-Salaam City Council [1966] EA 281
  • British India General Insurance Company Limited v GM Pharma and Company [1966] EA 172
  • David Acar v Acar Aciro [1982] HCB 60

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Gulberg Hides & Skins (U) Ltd v Bank of Africa (U) Ltd (Miscellaneous Application No. 773 of 2021) [2022] UGCommC 47 (29 June 2022)
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.