Wakilii

Katerega Ben and Others v Kikulwe John and Others (Miscellaneous Application 88 of 2025)

High Court · [2025] UGHC 1061 · 2025 Application Dismissed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Interlocutory application for leave to amend plaint and reopen case in ongoing civil suit concerning validity of a will
Decision
Application dismissed; main suit to proceed with defence evidence

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 for leave to amend a plaint and reopen a case at an advanced stage of proceedings. The court held that the proposed amendments introduced a new cause of action not originally pleaded, would require a de novo trial, and would cause substantial prejudice to the respondents. The applicants failed to establish any recognized ground for reopening their case, as the evidence they sought to introduce was available from the outset and the matters raised had been canvassed during cross-examination.

Outcome

Application dismissed; main suit to proceed with defence evidence

Facts

The applicants instituted Civil Suit No. 003 of 2022 in February 2022 seeking a declaration that a will dated 26 January 2019 was a forgery and that the deceased died intestate. After a joint scheduling memorandum was filed, trial bundles exchanged, and documents marked in September 2022, the plaintiffs' case was closed in November 2024 after five witnesses testified. The defence opened its case and two witnesses had been cross-examined when the applicants sought leave to amend their plaint and reopen their case. The proposed amendments sought to add an alternative cause of action and introduce evidence about alleged discrepancies in the will, including non-existent bequests, excluded beneficiaries, and the existence of multiple wills. The respondents opposed the application on grounds that it was made in bad faith, at an advanced stage of proceedings, would introduce a new cause of action, and would require the entire case to be restarted.

Issues

  1. Whether leave should be granted to the Applicant to amend the Plaint in H.C.C.S. No. 003 of 2022
  2. Whether the Applicant should be granted leave to reopen its case in High Court Civil Suit No. 003 of 2022
  3. What remedies are available to the parties

Orders

  • Leave to amend the Plaint in H.C.C.S. No. 003 of 2022 is denied.
  • Leave to reopen the Applicants' case in H.C.C.S. No. 003 of 2022 is denied.
  • The costs of this application are awarded to the Respondents.
  • The matter shall proceed for hearing with the Defence's last witness at the next hearing date.

Rules and key headnotes

Civil Procedure — Amendment of Pleadings — Discretion of Court — Principles Governing Grant of Leave
The court has discretionary power under Order 6 rule 19 of the Civil Procedure Rules to allow amendment of pleadings at any stage of proceedings to determine the real questions in controversy between the parties, but this power must be exercised judiciously considering whether the amendment is made in good faith, whether it would cause injustice to the opposing party that cannot be compensated by costs, and whether it introduces a distinct cause of action in place of the original cause.
Civil Procedure — Amendment of Pleadings — Introduction of New Cause of Action — Impermissibility at Advanced Stage
Amendments introducing a new cause of action are impermissible, especially if they go to the root of the defence and require a complete overhaul of the opposing party's case at a late stage of proceedings, as this would effectively restart the case de novo and cause substantial prejudice to the opposing party.
Civil Procedure — Amendment of Pleadings — Timing and Delay — Effect of Three-Year Laches
Where a suit has been ongoing for over three years with pleadings closed, trial bundles exchanged, and evidence substantially completed, granting leave to amend the plaint to introduce a new cause of action would set a dangerous precedent allowing never-ending amendments with no closure to pleadings and must be refused.
Civil Procedure — Reopening of Case — Grounds for Exercise of Discretion
A court may grant leave to reopen a party's case where fresh evidence unavailable or not reasonably discoverable before becomes available, where there has been inadvertent error, where there has been mistaken apprehension of facts, or where there has been mistaken apprehension of law, but the primary consideration is whether overall justice supports reopening with minimal prejudice to the opposing party.
Civil Procedure — Reopening of Case — Evidence Available from Outset — Refusal of Leave
Where a party seeks to reopen its case to adduce evidence that was available or reasonably discoverable before the case was closed, and the matters sought to be raised were canvassed during cross-examination, the application must be refused as the party has not demonstrated any recognized ground for reopening.

Legislation cited (5)

Cases cited (3)

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Katerega Ben and Others v Kikulwe John and Others (Miscellaneous Application 88 of 2025) [2025] UGHC 1061 (6 October 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.