Wakilii

Kayizzi v Kayondo (Miscillinous Application No. 0387 of 2016)

High Court · [2019] UGHCLD 64 · 2019 Application Dismissed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Application for leave to amend written statement of defence and introduce 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

Court dismissed application to amend defence and introduce counterclaim. Respondent's reply affidavit struck out for being filed over one month late without consent or leave. Proposed amendments based on facts within applicant's knowledge from outset, not new discoveries. Counterclaim sought to challenge criminal conviction without evidence it was set aside on appeal and would introduce new cause of action with no foundation in existing proceedings.

Outcome

Application dismissed; main suit to proceed on existing pleadings

Facts

Applicant sought leave to amend his written statement of defence and introduce a counterclaim in ongoing civil suit arising from land transactions. Proposed amendments sought to introduce facts about prior friendship between parties, applicant's purchase of plot from respondent's father, and that respondent had previously caused applicant to be prosecuted, convicted and imprisoned, resulting in loss of businesses. Respondent filed reply affidavit over one month after service without seeking consent or leave. Applicant sought counterclaim based on his conviction and imprisonment at instance of respondent, without evidence that conviction had been set aside on appeal.

Issues

  1. Whether the applicant's affidavit in reply was properly filed within the time prescribed by the rules.
  2. Whether the applicant should be granted leave to amend the written statement of defence and introduce a counterclaim.
  3. Whether the proposed amendments satisfied the requirements under Order 6 Rule 19 CPR and established principles governing amendment of pleadings.

Orders

  • Respondent's affidavit in reply struck out for being filed out of time without leave of court.
  • Application for leave to amend written statement of defence and introduce counterclaim dismissed for lack of merit.
  • Main suit to proceed on basis of existing pleadings.
  • Each party to bear their own costs.
  • Main suit to be heard on 20 February 2017.

Rules and key headnotes

Civil Procedure — Pleadings — Filing of Reply Affidavit Out of Time
Where a reply affidavit is filed over one month after service of an application without consent of opposing counsel or leave of court, it contravenes the provisions regarding filing of pleadings and must be struck out.
Civil Procedure — Amendment of Pleadings — Principles Governing Grant of Leave
The court has discretion under Order 6 Rule 19 CPR to allow amendment of pleadings at any time, but the intended amendment must not cause injustice to the other side, should avoid multiplicity of proceedings, must not be made mala fide, and must not be expressly prohibited by law. Amendment is granted on the premise that it will not prejudice the other party or that the other party can be compensated by way of costs.
Civil Procedure — Amendment of Pleadings — Substantial Change of Cause of Action
An amendment that substantially changes the cause of action into a different one or that deprives the other party of an accrued right will not be allowed.
Civil Procedure — Amendment of Pleadings — Facts Within Applicant's Knowledge
Leave to amend will not be granted where the proposed amendments are based on facts that were within the applicant's knowledge from the outset and do not amount to new information discovered after the original pleadings were filed or facts mistakenly left out.
Civil Procedure — Counterclaim — Introduction of New Cause of Action
A proposed counterclaim that introduces a new cause of action with no foundation in the subsisting proceedings and that seeks to interfere with a lawful conviction and sentence not set aside on appeal will not be allowed.

Legislation cited (2)

Cases cited (4)

  • Orient Bank Ltd v Avi Enterprises Ltd (HCCA No. 2 of 2013)
  • Matovu Store Ltd & Anor Vs James Mbabazi & Anor 1993 HCB 3
  • Gaso Transport Services Ltd v Martin Adala Obene (Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 4 of 1994)
  • Edward Kabugo Sentongo Vs Bank of Uganda HCMA 2003/ 2007

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Kayizzi_v_Kayondo_(Miscillinous_Application_No._0387_of_2016)_[2019]_UGHCLD_64_(18_December_2019)
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.