Wakilii

Kasaija and 254 Others v Kabakumba and 2 Others (Miscellaneous Application 164 of 2022)

High Court · [2023] UGHC 163 · 2023 Application Dismissed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Application for leave to amend counterclaim in ongoing civil suit
Decision
Application dismissed; main suit to proceed on existing pleadings

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 the applicants' application for leave to amend their counterclaim in a civil suit. The court found that the application did not satisfy the requirements of Order 6 rule 19 of the Civil Procedure Rules or the principles governing amendments as set out in Gaso Transport Services Ltd v Martin Adala Obene. The court ordered that the main suit proceed on the basis of existing pleadings.

Outcome

Application dismissed; main suit to proceed on existing pleadings

Facts

The first respondent filed Civil Suit No. 62 of 2017 against the applicants (255 persons). After trial bundles, witness statements, and scheduling memoranda were filed, the applicants filed miscellaneous applications which were dismissed. The applicants then sought leave to amend their counterclaim, arguing that their new lawyers identified that fraud particularized in the written statement of defence should be reproduced in the counterclaim, and that the amendment would correct numbering, spelling mistakes, and abandon certain paragraphs. The applicants also sought to add a prayer for general damages. The respondents opposed, arguing the application was time-barred, vexatious, and would introduce a new cause of action after witness statements had been exchanged. The application was filed on 27 October 2022, endorsed on 8 November 2022, and served on 20 January 2023.

Issues

  1. Whether the application for leave to amend the counterclaim was filed and served within the prescribed time limits.
  2. Whether the proposed amendments satisfy the requirements under Order 6 rule 19 of the Civil Procedure Rules.
  3. Whether granting the amendment would work injustice to the respondents or substantially change the cause of action.

Orders

  • Application dismissed for lack of merit.
  • Hearing of the main suit to be fixed on the basis of existing pleadings.
  • Each party to meet their own costs.

Rules and key headnotes

Civil Procedure — Amendment of Pleadings — Requirements Under Order 6 Rule 19 CPR
Under Order 6 rule 19 of the Civil Procedure Rules, the court may at any stage allow amendment of pleadings in such manner and on such terms as may be just, for the purpose of determining the real questions in controversy between the parties.
Civil Procedure — Amendment of Pleadings — Principles Governing Grant of Leave
Before allowing an amendment to pleadings, a court must consider: (a) whether the amendment would work injustice to the other side; (b) whether the amendment avoids multiplicity of proceedings; (c) whether the application is made mala fide; (d) whether the amendment is prohibited by law; and (e) whether the amendment would substantially change the cause of action.
Civil Procedure — Amendment of Pleadings — Timing and Liberal Approach
Amendments sought before hearing should be freely allowed if no injustice is occasioned to either party, and it is not an injustice if it can be compensated in costs. Where the amendment is necessary to enable justice to be done between the parties, it will be allowed on terms even at a late stage, but leave will be refused if the application is mala fide, would cause undue delay, unfairly prejudice the other party, or is irrelevant or useless.

Legislation cited (6)

Cases cited (6)

  • Eastern Bakery v Castelino (1958) EA 461
  • Mayanja Alfonso Roy v Nadduli Abdul (High Court Civil Suit No. 77 of 2017)
  • Gaso Transport Services Ltd v Martin Adala Obene (Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 4 of 1994)
  • Edward Kabugo Sentongo v Bank of Baroda (High Court Miscellaneous Application No. 203 of 2007)
  • Eastern Bakery v Castelino (1958) EA 461
  • Lubowa Gyaviira and Others v Makerere University (High Court Miscellaneous Application No. 471 of 2009)

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Kasaija and 254 Others v Kabakumba and 2 Others (Miscellaneous Application 164 of 2022) [2023] UGHC 163 (22 December 2023)
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.