Wakilii

Kalyowa Moses and Others v Kaggwa Damascus and Others (Miscellaneous Application No. 365 of 2025)

High Court · [2026] UGHC 178 · 2026 Application Dismissed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Application for leave to amend pleadings in pending land suit arising from HCT-17-LD-0013-22 (formerly Civil Suit No. 572 of 2022)
Decision
Application for leave to amend pleadings dismissed

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 dismissed an application to amend pleadings where the applicants sought to introduce facts they claimed were newly discovered after filing suit. The court held that the alleged new facts — including knowledge of title cancellation and eviction — were already pleaded in the original plaint and formed part of the existing record. The court found that the applicants knew their titles had been cancelled before filing suit, as evidenced by prayers in the original plaint seeking reinstatement of cancelled titles. The amendment was therefore unnecessary for determining the real questions in controversy.

Outcome

Application for leave to amend pleadings dismissed

Facts

The applicants filed a land suit (HCT-17-LD-0013-22) concerning Bulemezi Block 849, plots 4, 5, 6 and 7 at Kikweke. After filing, they sought leave to amend their plaint to include facts they claimed were newly discovered: that the 4th Respondent (Commissioner Land Registration) had cancelled their certificates of title without due process, and that the 1st-3rd Respondents had evicted them and destroyed their property after court granted an injunction. The applicants also sought production of documents from the 4th Respondent relating to the title cancellation. The respondents opposed, arguing that the alleged new facts were already pleaded in the original plaint, the requested documents were already on court record, and the application was brought 18 months after scheduling. The 4th Respondent stated that a notice of intention to effect changes was sent to applicants on 7 October 2021 inviting them to a public hearing on 10 November 2021, but they did not appear.

Issues

  1. Whether the Applicants have sufficient grounds to be allowed to amend their Plaint.
  2. What remedies are available to the parties.

Orders

  • Application dismissed.
  • Costs shall be in the main cause.

Rules and key headnotes

Civil Procedure — Amendment of Pleadings — Principles for Grant of Leave
Under Order 6 Rule 19 of the Civil Procedure Rules, the court may at any stage allow a party to amend pleadings in such manner and on such terms as may be just, and all such amendments shall be made as are necessary for the purpose of determining the real questions in controversy between the parties.
Civil Procedure — Amendment of Pleadings — No Injustice to Opposite Party
Amendments to pleadings sought before hearing should be freely allowed if they can be made without injustice to the other side, and there is no injustice if the other side can be compensated by costs. The main principle is that an amendment should not be allowed if it causes injustice to the other side.
Civil Procedure — Amendment of Pleadings — Guiding Principles
The principles governing grant of an order for amendment of pleadings are: (a) the amendment should not cause injustice to the other party; (b) multiplicity of proceedings should be avoided and all amendments which avoid such multiplicity should be allowed; (c) an application made mala fides should not be allowed; and (d) no amendment should be allowed where it is expressly or impliedly prohibited by any law.
Civil Procedure — Amendment of Pleadings — Facts Already Pleaded
An amendment will not be granted where the alleged new facts sought to be introduced are already part of the original plaint and the parties' pleadings on record, as such amendment is not necessary for determining the real questions in controversy between the parties.
Civil Procedure — Amendment of Pleadings — Discovery Not Proper Basis
The procedure for discovery and inspection under Order 10 of the Civil Procedure Rules is not one envisaged under Order 6 Rule 19 and cannot form a basis for an application to amend pleadings.

Legislation cited (4)

Cases cited (11)

  • Eastern Bakery v Castelino (1958) 1 EA 467
  • Tildesley v Harper (1878) 10 Ch D 393
  • Clarapede Vs Commercial Union Association (7843), 32 W.R 262
  • Budding v Murdoch (1875) 7 Ch D 42
  • Ma shwe Mya Vs Maung Po Hnaung (4) (1927),48 7.A.274: 48 Cal 832
  • Raleigh vs Goschen (5) (7898) 73,87
  • Weldon vs Neal (6) (78870, 79 Q.B.D 394
  • Hilton Vs. Sutton Steam Laundry (7),( 7946) K.B 65
  • Assa Abloy (U) Ltd v John Mboizi (Miscellaneous Application No. 784 of 2020)
  • Sarah Nyakato v Lin Jeng Liang and 5 Others (Miscellaneous Application No. 316 of 2022)
  • Gaso Transport Services Ltd v Martin Adala Obene (Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 4 of 1994)

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Kalyowa Moses and Others v Kaggwa Damascus and Others (Miscellaneous Application No. 365 of 2025) [2026] UGHC 178 (5 March 2026)
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.