Wakilii

Joyce Grace Katende v Sulaiman Simagamaga (Civil Appeal No. 44 of 1990)

High Court · [1993] UGHC 135 · 1993 Application Granted AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Application by chamber summons for leave to amend notice of motion following dismissal of appeal
Decision
Application granted; applicant permitted to amend the notice of motion

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

Held that amendment to a notice of motion is properly filed under Order 6 rule 18 of the Civil Procedure Rules. Where amendment causes no injustice to the respondent and no new cause of action is introduced, the court should allow the amendment to enable parties to put their case properly. Administration of justice requires that disputes be investigated on their merits and lapses should not debar an applicant from pursuing rights. Application to amend allowed with costs in the cause.

Outcome

Application granted; applicant permitted to amend the notice of motion

Facts

The applicant was plaintiff in a civil suit at Magistrate's Grade II Court, Mpigi, claiming the respondent illegally occupied her land at Nanagoma. Judgment was entered in her favour. The respondent appealed to the Chief Magistrate's Court, which allowed the appeal with costs. The applicant sought leave to appeal to the High Court on a substantial question of law under s.212(1)(c)(4) of the Magistrates' Court Act 1970. The Chief Magistrate refused leave but the High Court granted it on 13 November 1990. On 9 May 1991, Kalanda J dismissed the appeal as incompetent on the ground that there was only a provisional memorandum of appeal before him. The applicant's counsel alleged that the judge had been given the wrong file (Civil Appeal No. 7/90 Kanadi Sentamu vs. Abdu Serunkuma instead of the instant appeal). Counsel filed a notice of motion dated 27 March 1991 to set aside the dismissal order. On 3 August 1993, the applicant sought leave to amend that notice of motion to include the number of the wrong file and to allege reasons for late attendance.

Issues

  1. Whether the applicant should be granted leave to amend the notice of motion filed after the appeal was dismissed.
  2. Whether the affidavit in support of the application contained false statements that should defeat the application.
  3. Whether the delay of approximately two years in seeking to amend the notice of motion should bar the application.

Orders

  • Application to amend the original notice of motion is allowed.
  • Costs in the cause.

Rules and key headnotes

Civil Procedure — Amendment of Pleadings — Notice of Motion
Under Order 6 rule 18 of the Civil Procedure Rules, the court may at any stage of proceedings allow either party to alter or amend pleadings, and a notice of motion constitutes a pleading within the meaning of section 2 of the Civil Procedure Act, Cap 65.
Civil Procedure — Amendment of Pleadings — Principles for Allowing Amendment
Amendments to pleadings sought before hearing should be freely allowed if they can be made without injustice to the other side, provided there is no injustice that cannot be compensated by costs, and the court will not refuse an amendment simply because it introduces a new cause, but will refuse where the amendment would prejudice the rights of the opposite party existing at the date of the proposed amendment.
Civil Procedure — Administration of Justice — Substance Over Technicality
The administration of justice normally requires that the substance of all disputes should be investigated and decided upon on their merits, and errors and lapses should not debar an applicant from pursuing his rights by amending pleadings where the amendment enables parties to put their case properly and broadly so that the court may come to a fair decision on the crucial issues.

Legislation cited (3)

Cases cited (7)

  • Eastern Bakery v Costellino [1958] EA 461
  • Tidlasly v Harper (1878) 10 Ch D 373
  • Clarapedg vs. Commercial Union Association 1883 VER 262
  • Budding v Kudoch (1875) 1 Ch D 42
  • Welshot v Hoel (1878) 19 QBD 399
  • Essaji v Solanki [1968] EA
  • Baritatan Kanairura GAA No. AT of 1976 reported 1977 HCB 133

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Joyce Grace Katende v Sulaiman Simagamaga (Civil Appeal No. 44 of 1990) [1993] UGHC 135 (2 December 1993)
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.