Wakilii

Kalema v Namisanvu and 9 Others (Miscellaneous Application No.1094 of 2025)

High Court · [2025] UGHCLD 225 · 2025 Application Granted AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Interlocutory application arising from civil suit for leave to strike out deceased party and add new party
Decision
Application granted; 1st Respondent struck off; 10th Respondent added; leave to amend pleadings granted

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 strike out the 1st Respondent who had died and to add the 10th Respondent as a necessary party to the underlying land suit. The court held that a non-existent party cannot sue or be sued, and that the 10th Respondent was necessary to determine all questions in controversy regarding the suit property. Leave was granted to amend the plaint to reflect these changes.

Outcome

Application granted; 1st Respondent struck off; 10th Respondent added; leave to amend pleadings granted

Facts

The Applicant filed Civil Suit No. 593 of 2023 against nine Respondents concerning land comprised in Kibuga Block 12 Plot 230 at Kampala. The 1st Respondent passed away on 12 March 2025. The 10th Respondent, Kaddu David, had previously filed a counterclaim in Civil Suit No. 411 of 2022 seeking a declaration that the transaction between the Applicant and certain Respondents regarding the same suit land was null and void. The 10th Respondent was a surviving administrator of the estate of the late Mubiru Christopher. Before the court could pronounce itself in Civil Suit No. 411 of 2022, the 10th Respondent and the 1st Respondent dealt with the suit property. The Applicant sought leave to strike out the deceased 1st Respondent, add the 10th Respondent as a party, and amend the plaint accordingly. No Affidavit in Reply was filed by any Respondent.

Issues

  1. Whether leave to amend pleadings by striking off the 1st Respondent and addition of the 10th Respondent should be granted?

Orders

  • The 1st Respondent is hereby struck off the record of Civil Suit No. 0593 of 2023.
  • The 10th Respondent is hereby added to the record.
  • Leave is hereby granted to the Applicant to amend the pleadings within fourteen days from the date of this ruling to reflect the changes.
  • No order as to costs.

Rules and key headnotes

Civil Procedure — Parties — Death of Party — Striking Out Non-Existent Party
A non-existent party cannot sue or be sued, and where a party dies before trial, the court has power under Order 1 Rule 13 and Order 24 Rule 2 of the Civil Procedure Rules to strike that party off the record.
Civil Procedure — Parties — Addition of Parties — Necessary Party
Under Order 1 Rule 13 of the Civil Procedure Rules, the court has wide and extensive power to add a party at any time before trial where such party is necessary to enable the court to determine all questions in controversy, provided the addition does not cause injustice and is not made mala fide or with inordinate delay.
Civil Procedure — Amendment of Pleadings — Discretion of Court
Under Order 6 Rule 19 of the Civil Procedure Rules, the court may allow amendment of pleadings at any stage of proceedings in such manner and on such terms as may be just, for the purpose of determining the real questions in controversy between the parties.

Legislation cited (5)

Cases cited (6)

  • The Fort Hall Bakery Supply Co v Frederick Muigai Wangoe [1959] 1 EA 474
  • Abdulrahman Elamin v Dhabi Group (Civil Appeal No. 215 of 2013)
  • Rajab Mudaki and Others v Best Kemigisha and Another (HCMA No. 90 of 2021)
  • John Kaye v Attorney General (Constitutional Court Application No. 25 of 2012)
  • Gaso Transport Services (Bus) Ltd v Obene (1990-1994) EA 88
  • Mulowooza & Brothers Ltd v Shah & Co Ltd (SCCA No. 26 of 2010)

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Kalema_v_Namisanvu_and_9_Others_(Miscellaneous_Application_No.1094_of_2025)_[2025]_UGHCLD_225_(1_August_2025)
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.