Kajobe v Mogo Loans SMC Limited (Miscellaneous Application 618 of 2024)

Observed later treatment

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.

Holding

The High Court granted the applicant leave to amend the plaint to provide further and better particulars of fraud. The court held that no delay in service occurred where summons were served a day after a hearing date was allocated, that the suit had not abated where the Registrar had signed summons for directions but a new hearing date was not allocated due to Court delays, and that amendments should be freely allowed at preliminary stages where they do not prejudice the other party or substitute one cause of action for another.

Outcome

Application granted with directions for filing and service of amended plaint and subsequent pleadings

Facts

The applicant filed Civil Suit No.585 of 2021 against the respondent for fraud and breach of transparency in a loan contract. After perusing the court documents, the applicant realized that some facts regarding the respondent's fraud were omitted by her previous lawyers from the plaint. The applicant sought leave to amend the plaint to provide further and better particulars of fraud. The respondent opposed, arguing that the application was served out of time, that the main suit had abated due to failure to take out summons for directions, and that the amendment would introduce a new cause of action. The applicant had extracted summons for directions in January 2022 with a hearing date in February 2022, but the hearing did not proceed because all Registrars were attending a seminar. A new date was requested but never allocated.

Issues

1. Whether the Applicant should be granted leave to amend the plaint in Civil Suit No.585 of 2021
2. What remedies are available to the parties
3. Whether the Respondent was served with the application out of time
4. Whether the main suit from which this application arises had abated

Orders

• The Applicant is hereby granted leave to amend the plaint in High Court Civil Suit No.585 of 2021 by providing further and better particulars of fraud.
• The Applicant shall file and serve the amended plaint to the Respondent within twenty-one (21) days from the date of this Ruling.
• The Respondent shall file and serve its amended written statement of defence within twenty (20) days after receipt of the amended plaint and a rejoinder to be filed within fourteen (14) days after receipt of the amended written statement of defence.
• Costs of this application shall be in the cause.
• The preliminary objection regarding service out of time is overruled.
• The preliminary objection regarding abatement of the suit is overruled.

Rules and key headnotes

Legislation cited (11)

• Civil Procedure Act s.98
• Civil Procedure Rules Order 6 r.19
• Civil Procedure Rules Order 6 r.31
• Civil Procedure Rules Order 5 r.1(2)
• Civil Procedure Rules Order 5 r.1(5)
• Civil Procedure Rules Order 6 r.28
• Civil Procedure Rules Order XIA r.1(2)
• Civil Procedure Rules Order XIA r.1(6)
• Civil Procedure Rules Order 15 r.5(1)
• Constitution of the Republic of Uganda Article 126(2)(e)
• Judicature Act s.37

Cases cited (16)

• Oriental Insurance Brokers Ltd v Transocean (U) Limited (Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 55 of 1995)
• Uganda Telecom Limited v ZTE Corporation (Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 3 of 2017)
• Nyanzi Muhammad v Nassolo Harriet and 2 Others (High Court Miscellaneous Application No. 14 of 2021)
• Visare Uganda Limited v Festus Katerega t/a Quickway Auctioneers & 3 Others (High Court Miscellaneous Application No. 2855 of 2023)
• Kampala Associated Advocates v Katamba Ssemakula (High Court Miscellaneous Application No. 677 of 2021)
• Bamanyisa Maliko & 156 Others v National Forestry Authority (High Court Civil Suit No. 27 of 2020)
• Gaso Transport Services (Bus) Limited v Martin Adala Obene (Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 4 of 1994)
• Edward Kabugo Sentongo v Bank of Baroda (U) Limited (High Court Miscellaneous Application No. 203 of 2007)
• Zaverio Ndabahwereze Byabagambi v MTN (U) Limited and 2 Others (High Court Miscellaneous Application No. 94 of 2023)
• Eastern Bakery v Castelino [1958] 1 EA 461
• Tororo Cement Co. Ltd v Frokina International Ltd (Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 2 of 2001)
• Kampala Bottlers Ltd v Damanico (U) Ltd (Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 22 of 1992)
• Fam International Limited and Another v Mohamed Hamid El-Fatih (Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 16 of 1993)
• Johnson Akol Omunyokol v Attorney General of the Republic of Uganda (EACJ Application No. 3 of 2016)
• Sarah Nyakato v Lin Jeng Liang aka Lin Jeff and 5 Others (Miscellaneous Application No. 316 of 2022)
• Trans-Drakensberg Bank Ltd v Combined Engineering (Pty) Limited 1967 (3) SA 632 (D)

Cases citing this judgment (2)

How later Ugandan judgments in the Wakilii corpus have cited this case. Treatment labels come from Sequitur — Uganda’s citator — each backed by a verbatim span from the citing judgment, and are not an assertion that this case is, or is not, good law.

• Sowedi Kasule (Administrator of The Estate of Late Yosamu Magembe) v Alice Kasumba and Another (Civil Suit 522 of 2025)
• Sowedi Kasule (Administrator Of The Estate Of The Late Yosamu Magembe) v Alice Kasumba and Another (Civil Suit 522 of 2025)

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