Wakilii

Kenneth Tumwebaze Rwankungu v Kalema Sarah and Others (Miscellaneous Appeal No. 4 of 2025)

High Court · [2026] UGHC 38 · 2026 Appeal Allowed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Appeal from the Deputy Registrar's decision dismissing an application for leave to amend the plaint and add defendants in a trespass suit
Decision
Appeal allowed; orders of the Deputy Registrar set aside; leave granted to amend plaint and add defendants; matter remitted to Deputy Registrar for further directions

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

Held that the Appeal was filed within time as the request for the record of proceedings was made within the statutory seven-day period, thereby stopping time under section 79(2) of the Civil Procedure Act. The Deputy Registrar erred in refusing leave to amend the plaint to add a cause of action of fraud, as the law permits joinder of multiple causes of action arising from the same facts and the amendment did not substitute the original trespass claim but supplemented it. The Deputy Registrar also erred in holding that intended defendants must be joined to the Application for amendment itself, as the Civil Procedure Rules require only that amended pleadings be served on new defendants after leave is granted. The Application was neither defective nor ambiguous. Appeal allowed; leave granted to amend the plaint and add defendants.

Outcome

Appeal allowed; orders of the Deputy Registrar set aside; leave granted to amend plaint and add defendants; matter remitted to Deputy Registrar for further directions

Facts

The Appellant instituted Civil Suit No. 398 of 2024 against the Respondents for trespass on land comprised in Block 82 Plots 2116, 2120, 2121, 2123, 3428 and 4582 measuring approximately 9.5 acres at Kigoogwa, Wakiso District. The Appellant had purchased the land in 2014 from beneficial owners of the Estate of the late Yolamu Sepuya. Around 2017, he discovered that the Respondents and others had forcibly entered the land, constructed houses, planted trees, and used portions for brick making without his consent. The Appellant filed Miscellaneous Application No. 3343 of 2024 seeking leave to amend the plaint to add a cause of action of fraud and to add additional defendants. The Deputy Registrar dismissed the Application on preliminary objections that the amendment introduced a new cause of action and that the intended defendants were not made parties to the Application. The Appellant appealed to the High Court.

Issues

  1. Whether the Appeal was filed out of time and without leave of Court.
  2. Whether the Learned Deputy Registrar erred in law and in fact when she upheld the Respondents' preliminary objection that the addition of the cause of action of fraud was not permitted.
  3. Whether the Learned Deputy Registrar erred in law and in fact when she upheld the Respondents' preliminary objection that the failure to add the intended defendants to the Application made the Application defective.
  4. Whether the Learned Deputy Registrar erred in law and in fact when she ignored the draft amended plaint annexed to the Application.
  5. Whether the Learned Deputy Registrar erred in law and in fact when she purported to find that the orders sought in the Application made the Application ambiguous.

Orders

  • The orders of the learned Deputy Registrar in Miscellaneous Application No. 3343 of 2024 are hereby set aside.
  • The Appeal against the orders of the learned Deputy Registrar in Miscellaneous Application No. 3343 of 2024 is hereby granted.
  • The Appellant is hereby granted leave to amend the Plaint in Civil Suit No. 398 of 2024 now Civil Suit No. 0523 of 2024 restricting the amendments only to those indicated in the intended amended plaint.
  • The Appellant is hereby granted leave to add defendants to Civil Suit No. 398 of 2024 now Civil Suit No. 0523 of 2024 restricting the intended defendants to only to those indicated in the intended amended plaint.
  • The learned Deputy Registrar shall give further directions regarding the time within which to file the amendment and any other subsequent pleadings and processes before him.
  • The costs of this Appeal are awarded to the Appellant.

Rules and key headnotes

Civil Procedure — Appeals — Computation of Time — Exclusion of Day of Delivery
In computing the period of limitation for filing an Appeal under section 79(1)(b) of the Civil Procedure Act, the day on which the decision is delivered is excluded by operation of section 34(1)(a) of the Interpretation Act, and time begins to run on the following day.
Civil Procedure — Appeals — Effect of Request for Record of Proceedings
Where a party files a request for the record of proceedings within the statutory period prescribed for filing an Appeal, the running of time is stopped by operation of section 79(2) of the Civil Procedure Act until the record is availed, and the Appeal is not out of time.
Civil Procedure — Amendment of Pleadings — Joinder of Causes of Action
Order 2 rule 4(1) of the Civil Procedure Rules permits a plaintiff to unite several causes of action in the same suit against the same defendant or defendants. A court should not refuse an amendment merely because it introduces a new cause of action, provided the amendment does not substitute the original cause of action with one of a substantially different character, does not alter the nature of the suit, and does not prejudice the opposing party in a manner that cannot be compensated by costs.
Civil Procedure — Amendment of Pleadings — Introduction of Fraud as Additional Cause of Action
Where a plaintiff seeks to amend a plaint to add a cause of action of fraud alongside an existing claim of trespass, and the fraud allegation arises from the same facts and explains the manner in which the trespass occurred, the amendment does not change the character of the suit and should be allowed to enable the court to determine all matters in controversy and avoid multiplicity of suits.
Civil Procedure — Joinder of Parties — Procedure for Adding Defendants
Neither Order 1 rule 10(2) nor Order 6 rule 19 of the Civil Procedure Rules requires that intended defendants be made parties to an Application for leave to amend and add defendants. The correct procedure is that leave is sought from the existing parties, and once granted, the amended plaint and summons are served on the newly added defendants, who then enter the proceedings and exercise their right to be heard. Failure to join intended defendants at the Application stage does not render the Application defective.
Civil Procedure — Joinder of Parties — Necessary and Proper Parties
A person qualifies as a necessary and proper party to be added to a suit where: (a) his or her presence is necessary for the effectual and complete settlement of all questions in controversy; (b) the orders sought would legally affect his or her interests; (c) there is a right to relief against such person arising from the same transaction or series of transactions; and (d) the ultimate decree cannot be effectively enforced in his or her absence. Where these conditions are met, the court should exercise its discretion to add the party to avoid multiplicity of suits and ensure complete adjudication.
Civil Procedure — Substantive Justice — Article 126(2)(e) of the Constitution
Courts are enjoined by Article 126(2)(e) of the Constitution to administer substantive justice without undue regard to technicalities. Where an Application clearly discloses the necessity of adding parties for the effective and complete determination of a dispute, the court should give effect to justice rather than defeat the claim on procedural formalism. Non-joinder of intended parties at the Application stage, where the law does not require it, cannot justify striking down the Application as defective.

Legislation cited (27)

Cases cited (35)

  • Gaso Transport Services (Bus) Ltd v Martin Adala Obene (Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 4 of 1994)
  • Amon v Raphael Tuck & Sons Ltd (1956) 1 All ER 273
  • Departed Asians Property Custodian Board v Jaffer Brothers Ltd (SCCA No. 9 of 1998)
  • Mulowooza & Brothers Ltd v N. Shah & Co. Ltd (Civil Appeal No. 26 of 2010)
  • Jani Properties Ltd v Dar-es-Salaam City Council (1966) EA 281
  • Boyes v Gathure [1969] EA 385
  • Space Marketing Uganda Limited v Equifax Uganda Ltd & 4 Others (MA No. 969 of 2020)
  • ABSA Bank (U) Limited v Musa Nsubuga & Another (MA No. 872 of 2022)
  • Francis Wazarwahi-Bwengye v Haki Bonera (HCT-00-CV-CA-0033-2009)
  • Yhaya Kariisa v Attorney General & Another (SCCA No. 7 of 1994)
  • Lea Associates Limited v Bunga Hill House Limited (HCMA No. 0348 of 2008)
  • Fredrick Zaabwe v Orient Bank Ltd (CACA No. 4 of 2006)
  • Kifamunte Henry v Uganda (SC Criminal Appeal No. 10 of 1997)
  • Baguma Fred v Uganda (SC Criminal Appeal No. 7 of 2004)
  • Abdul Hameed Saif v Ali Mohamed Sholan (1955) 22 EACA 270
  • Uganda Ginners & Cotton Exporters Ltd & 11 Others v Mudu Awulira (Miscellaneous Appeal No. 97 of 2014)
  • Zaverio Ndabahwereza Byabagambi v MTN (U) Ltd & Others (Miscellaneous Application No. 094 of 2023)
  • Kyakunzire Privah v Wokuri Moses Mukwasi (MA No. 0807 of 2024)
  • Sitenda Sebalu v Sam K. Njuba & Another (Election Petition Appeal No. 26 of 2007)
  • Cropper v Smith (1884) 26 Ch D 700
  • Attorney General v Uganda Blanket Manufacturers (1974) EA 438
  • Asimwe Philemon v Setengeri Clever (Miscellaneous Application No. 0110 of 2023)
  • Male H. Mabirizi v Attorney General (HC Miscellaneous Application No. 918 of 2021)
  • Musumba Isaac Isanga v Quid Financials Ltd (HC Miscellaneous Application No. 139 of 2020)
  • Nyanzi Fred Sentamu v The Electoral Commission and 2 Others (CA Miscellaneous Application No. 10 of 2021)
  • Visare Uganda Limited v Festus Katerega T/A Quickway Auctioneers & Others (Miscellaneous Application No. 2855 of 2023)
  • Baku Raphael v Attorney General (SC Constitutional Appeal No. 1 of 2005)
  • Bavima Steel Ltd v Construction Ltd & Another (Miscellaneous Application No. 26 of 2025)
  • Lubowa Gyaviira & Others v Makerere University (HCMA 471 of 2009)
  • Eastern Bakery v Castelino (Civil Appeal No. 30 of 1958)
  • Najjembe and Another v Attorney General (Miscellaneous Application No. 1858 of 2022)
  • Kingori v Chege and Others [2002] 2 KLR 243
  • Kamau v Makomboki Tea Factory Ltd [2008] 1 EA 154
  • Kireju and Others v Kahwa and Others (HCT-01-LD-MA-0043-2025)
  • Mohan Musisi Kiwanuka v Asha Chand (SCCA No. 14 of 2002)

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Kenneth Tumwebaze Rwankungu v Kalema Sarah and Others (Miscellaneous Appeal No. 4 of 2025) [2026] UGHC 38 (27 January 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.