Wakilii

Hotel Mamerito Limited and Others v National Resistance Movement (Miscellaneous Application No. 1058 of 2016)

High Court · [2017] UGHC 140 · 2017 Application Granted AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Application for leave to file an amended plaint arising out of Civil Suit No. 518 of 2015
Decision
Application granted with directions for filing of amended plaint and response

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 leave to the applicants to file an amended plaint. The court held that the proposed amendment did not introduce a new cause of action but sought to clarify the existing claim and add a party who had been dealing with the applicants on behalf of the respondent. The amendment would not cause injustice to the respondent, who could respond by filing an amended written statement of defence. The amendment was made in good faith at an early stage of proceedings and would assist the court in addressing the real issues and avoiding multiplicity of suits.

Outcome

Application granted with directions for filing of amended plaint and response

Facts

The applicants filed Civil Suit No. 518 of 2015 against the respondent for recovery of UGX 61,666,000, general damages and costs. The respondent claimed lack of proper detail in the plaint and absence of proof of indebtedness. The applicants brought an application seeking leave to file an amended plaint to clarify their claim, which was based on alleged oral contracts with the respondent. The applicants also sought to add Julius Kinyera as a defendant, alleging he was the representative of the respondent who dealt with them. The respondent opposed the application, arguing that it sought to introduce a new cause of action and would cause prejudice.

Issues

  1. Whether leave should be granted to the applicants to file an amended plaint.

Orders

  • Application allowed.
  • Applicants to file an amended plaint within seven (7) days from the date of this ruling.
  • Defendant to respond to the amended plaint, if at all, within seven (7) days of service of the amended plaint upon them.
  • Costs shall abide the cause.

Rules and key headnotes

Civil Procedure — Amendment of Pleadings — Principles Governing Judicial Discretion
The court may at any stage of proceedings allow a party to amend pleadings where necessary to determine the real questions in controversy between the parties, provided the amendment is not made mala fide, does not cause injustice to the other side that cannot be compensated by costs, and does not introduce a distinct new cause of action instead of the original one.
Civil Procedure — Amendment of Pleadings — Addition of Parties
The addition of a party to a suit by way of amendment does not constitute the introduction of a new cause of action where the party being added was involved in the original transactions giving rise to the claim and the amendment seeks to clarify the existing claim rather than change its essential character.
Civil Procedure — Amendment of Pleadings — Prejudice to Respondent
Prejudice in the context of amendments to pleadings means prejudice to the defence, not merely that the defendant will have to answer additional or clarified allegations. An amendment is not prejudicial if the defendant can respond to the new allegations and file an amended written statement of defence, particularly where the amendment is sought at an early stage of proceedings.

Legislation cited (6)

Cases cited (10)

  • JAS Progressive (U) Ltd v Tropical Africa Bank Ltd (Civil Suit No. 78 of 2011)
  • Eastern Bakery v Castalino [1958] EA 462
  • GASO Transport Services (Bus) Ltd v Obene [1990-94] EA 88
  • Bright Chicks Uganda v Dan Bahingire (Miscellaneous Application No. 254 of 2011)
  • Coweser Medical Centre v Uganda National Roads Authority (Miscellaneous Application No. 875 of 2016)
  • Mulowoza & Brothers v Shah N
  • Semakula Peter & Another v Attorney General (Civil Suit No. 237 of 2010)
  • Okidi & 2 Others v FINA Bank (U) Ltd (Miscellaneous Application No. 90 of 2013)
  • Great Lakes Ports Ltd v Tom Mugenga (Miscellaneous Application No. 374 of 2012)
  • Mbayo Jacob Robert v Electoral Commission and Another (Election Petition Appeal No. 7 of 2006)

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Hotel Mamerito Limited and Others v National Resistance Movement (Miscellaneous Application No. 1058 of 2016) [2017] UGHC 140 (13 February 2017)
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.