Kalema v Ssekibinge [2019] UGHCLD 10
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 an amended plaint filed after the expiration of fourteen days from filing of the written statement of defence and without leave of Court is void ab initio and has no effect on the original plaint. The withdrawal of such an invalid amended plaint does not vitiate the original plaint. The Defendant was awarded costs of the application to strike out the amended plaint.
Outcome
Amended plaint struck out; original plaint remains before Court for determination
Facts
The Plaintiff filed a plaint on 21 February 2018. The Defendant filed a written statement of defence on 7 March 2018. On 11 July 2018, the Plaintiff filed an amended plaint without leave of Court. On 12 November 2018, the Defendant filed Misc. Application No. 1789 of 2018 seeking to strike out the amended plaint as having been filed out of time. On 15 January 2019, the Plaintiff withdrew the amended plaint by letter to the registrar. The Defendant sought leave to appeal the registrar's order allowing the withdrawal without hearing from the Defendant and without awarding costs, and sought costs of the withdrawn suit.
Issues
- Whether the amended plaint filed on 11 July 2018 was filed out of time and without leave of Court.
- Whether the withdrawal of the amended plaint by letter to the registrar vitiated or removed the original plaint.
- Whether the Defendant is entitled to costs of the application for striking out the amended plaint.
Orders
- The amended plaint filed on 11 July 2018 is struck out.
- The original plaint filed on 21 February 2018 remains on record.
- The Defendant is granted costs of Misc. Application No. 1789 of 2018.
Rules and key headnotes
Legislation cited (4)
- Civil Procedure Rules O.6 r.18
- Civil Procedure Rules O.6 r.20
- Civil Procedure Rules O.25 r.1
- Civil Procedure Rules O.25 r.7
Cases cited (3)
- Nabanja Noor v Isaac Sendagire and Another (Civil Suit No. 182 of 2014)
- Makula International Ltd v Cardinal Nsubuga and Another (1982) HCB 11
- Nakiryowa Majorine Kiddu and Another v Maurice Sserugo Kiddu and Another (Civil Suit No. 587 of 2015)
Full judgment
The original judgment as reported. Read the original PDF before relying on any passage.