Kabadaki & 4 Ors v Katumbura (MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION NO. 0060 OF 2019)
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 amend the plaint to add three additional applicants as plaintiffs. The court held that no prejudice would be caused to the respondent and that the amendment would enable the court to determine the real questions in controversy between the parties once and for all, avoiding multiplicity of suits.
Outcome
Leave granted to amend plaint to add additional plaintiffs
Facts
The 1st and 2nd applicants filed High Court Civil Suit No. 002 of 2019 against the respondent. Letters of Administration previously granted to the 1st and 2nd applicants had been revoked, and they could no longer represent the interests of other affected beneficiaries. The applicants sought to amend their plaint to add three additional beneficiaries (the 3rd, 4th and 5th applicants) who were affected by the defendant's actions. The respondent opposed, arguing the plaint was incurably defective, introduced new fraud allegations, and that the suit was time-barred under the Limitation Act.
Issues
- Whether the applicants should be granted leave to amend their plaint to add additional plaintiffs.
Orders
- Application allowed.
- Leave granted to amend the plaint.
- Costs to be in the cause.
Rules and key headnotes
Legislation cited (8)
- Judicature Act s.33
- Civil Procedure Act s.98
- Civil Procedure Rules O.6 r.19
- Civil Procedure Rules O.6 r.31
- Civil Procedure Rules O.1 r.1
- Constitution of the Republic of Uganda 1995 Art.126(2)(e)
- Limitation Act s.20
- Limitation Act s.25
Cases cited (2)
- Gaso Transport Services (Bus) Ltd v Obene [1990-94] EA 88
- Lea Associates Limited versus Bunga Hill Limited 2008
Full judgment
The original judgment as reported. Read the original PDF before relying on any passage.