Kamya v Nakazibwe (Miscellaneous Application 72 of 2023)

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.

Holding

The High Court dismissed an application for leave to appeal from an interlocutory ruling. The applicant sought to challenge a ruling that denied him leave to amend his written statement of defence. The court held that the applicant failed to demonstrate grounds meriting serious judicial consideration, particularly where he denied instructing counsel who filed the original defence yet sought to amend that same defence. The application was dismissed with costs in the cause.

Outcome

Application for leave to appeal dismissed; main suit to proceed to hearing

Facts

The applicant sought leave to appeal against a ruling in Miscellaneous Application No. 794 of 2021 arising from Civil Suit No. 457 of 2019. The underlying dispute concerned whether the applicant should be granted leave to amend his written statement of defence. The applicant contended that a draft written statement of defence filed by M/S Sanywa, Wabwire & Co. Advocates through Ms. Kateregga Jennifer Nakato was not filed on his instructions and did not contain his real defence. The respondent opposed the application, asserting that the applicant never contested counsel's representation at the material time and was present when parties agreed to maintain the status quo. The court in the earlier ruling had denied leave to amend on the basis that the applicant denied having any defence on record yet sought to amend that non-existent defence.

Issues

1. Whether this application discloses sufficient grounds for leave to appeal?
2. What remedies are available?

Orders

• Application dismissed with costs in the cause.
• The main suit shall be fixed for hearing in the next session.

Rules and key headnotes

Legislation cited (7)

• Civil Procedure Rules SI 71-1 Order 44 Rule 1(2)
• Civil Procedure Rules SI 71-1 Order 44 Rule 2
• Civil Procedure Rules SI 71-1 Order 44 Rule 3
• Civil Procedure Rules SI 71-1 Order 44 Rule 4
• Civil Procedure Rules SI 71-1 Order 52 Rule 1
• Civil Procedure Rules SI 71-1 Order 15 Rule 3
• Civil Procedure Act Cap 71 s.98

Cases cited (3)

• Sango Bay Estates Ltd and Others v Dresdner Bank AG [1971] 1 EA 17
• Kilama Tonny and Another v Grace Perpetua Otim (High Court Civil Appeal No. 31 of 2019)
• Degeya Trading Stores (U) Ltd v Uganda Revenue Authority (Court of Appeal Civil Appeal No. 16 of 1996)

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