Wakilii

Kabagambe v Kahiire (Civil Suit No. 389 of 2016)

High Court · [2020] UGHCLD 19 · 2020 Preliminary Objection Dismissed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Ruling on preliminary objection to defendant's amended written statement of defence and counterclaim
Decision
Preliminary objection dismissed; amended pleadings admitted with directions for filing highlighted version and subsequent documents

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 despite the defendant filing the amended written statement of defence one day late and without highlighting, the court would admit it where leave had been granted in the plaintiff's counsel's presence, the plaintiff received the amendment and failed to raise the objection for almost a year, and no prejudice was demonstrated. The court's discretion under Order 6 rule 19 CPR permits amendments necessary to determine real questions in controversy between parties.

Outcome

Preliminary objection dismissed; amended pleadings admitted with directions for filing highlighted version and subsequent documents

Facts

The plaintiff filed a civil suit. On 8 July 2019, the court granted the defendant leave to amend his written statement of defence and counterclaim in the presence of both parties' counsel, with no objection from plaintiff's counsel. The court directed that the amendment be filed and served by 18 July 2019, with plaintiff's reply due by 25 July 2019. The defendant filed the amendment on 19 July 2019, one day late. The plaintiff received the amendment but did not raise any objection until 14 September 2020, almost a year later, when he filed a preliminary objection on grounds that the amendment was filed out of time without leave or consent, and was not highlighted to show changes. The defendant claimed he had mailed a copy to plaintiff's counsel who ignored it for lack of highlighting, and that attempts to meet had failed due to plaintiff counsel's schedule.

Issues

  1. Whether the defendant's amended written statement of defence and counterclaim should be struck off for being filed out of time without prior leave of court or consent of the plaintiff.
  2. Whether the amended written statement of defence should be struck off for failure to highlight amendments as required by the rules of practice.

Orders

  • Preliminary objection dismissed.
  • Amended written statement of defence and counterclaim admitted.
  • Defendant to file and serve amended written statement of defence and counterclaim with amendments duly highlighted within two weeks from date of ruling.
  • Plaintiff to file amended reply to amended defence and counterclaim within thirty days upon receiving highlighted version.
  • Plaintiff to serve joint scheduling memorandum and joint trial bundle generated with defendant's counsel consent within thirty days upon receiving highlighted version.
  • Costs in the cause.

Rules and key headnotes

Amendment of Pleadings — Court's Discretion — Order 6 Rule 19 CPR
Under Order 6 rule 19 CPR, the court has wide discretion at any stage of proceedings to allow either party to alter or amend pleadings in such manner and on such terms as may be just, for the purpose of determining the real questions in controversy between the parties and to avoid multiplicity of proceedings.
Amendment of Pleadings — Leave Granted in Presence of Counsel — Binding Effect
Where leave to amend pleadings is granted in the presence and with consent of counsel, such order is prima facie binding on all parties and cannot be varied or discharged unless obtained by fraud or collusion or by agreement contrary to the policy of the court.
Preliminary Objections — Delay in Raising — Effect
Where a party receives amended pleadings and fails to raise objections to procedural irregularities at the earliest opportunity, instead waiting almost a year while participating in subsequent court processes based on those pleadings without demonstrating prejudice, the court may exercise its discretion to admit the amendment despite technical non-compliance with timelines.

Legislation cited (2)

Cases cited (1)

  • Harani v Kassam (1952) EACA 131

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Kabagambe_v_Kahiire_(Civil_Suit_No._389_of_2016)_[2020]_UGHCLD_19_(15_October_2020)
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.