Wakilii

Kireju and Others v Kahwa and Others (HCT-01-LD-MA-0043-2025)

High Court · [2025] UGHC 545 · 2025 Application Granted AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Interlocutory application arising from civil suit for land recovery, seeking leave to amend plaint to add defendants
Decision
Application granted with leave to amend plaint to add three defendants; amended plaint to be filed within 15 days

Observed later treatment

Cited — treatment unverified cited in 1 (treatment unverified) Sequitur — Uganda’s citator · Derived from citing cases in the Wakilii corpus — not an assertion that this case is good law.

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.

No adverse treatment recorded Cited 1 time with no adverse treatment recorded; not yet tested on the merits. Derived from citing cases in the Wakilii corpus — a deterministic signal, not legal advice.

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 held that the underlying civil suit had not abated despite the applicants' failure to take out summons for directions within 28 days, because there was no evidence that the last written statement of defence had been served on the applicants. The court granted leave to amend the plaint to add three new defendants who were alleged to be integral to the chain of land transactions in dispute, finding their presence necessary for complete adjudication and to avoid multiplicity of suits.

Outcome

Application granted with leave to amend plaint to add three defendants; amended plaint to be filed within 15 days

Facts

The applicants initiated Civil Suit No. 08 of 2025 to recover land in Mwembi village, Bundibugyo District, from nine respondents. After filing, the applicants discovered that three individuals—Bakunda Matthew, Kyetunda Daudi, and Mark Kule—had unlawfully sold the suit land to the 2nd to 8th respondents, having acquired it from the 1st respondent. The applicants sought to add these three as defendants. The respondents opposed, arguing the suit had abated because the applicants failed to take out summons for directions within 28 days of the last reply. The 2nd to 9th respondents filed their written statements of defence on 3rd March 2025 and served them on 5th March 2025. The 1st respondent filed his defence on 12th March 2025, but there was no evidence it was served on the applicants.

Issues

  1. Whether Civil Suit No. 08 of 2025 abated on account of failure to take out summons for directions.
  2. Whether the Applicants should be allowed to amend the Plaint to add Bakunda Matthew, Kyetunda Daudi, and Mark Kule as Defendants.

Orders

  • The Applicants are granted leave to amend the Plaint in Civil Suit No. 08 of 2025 to add Bakunda Matthew, Kyetunda Daudi, and Mark Kule as Defendants.
  • The Applicants shall file an amended Plaint within 15 days from the date of delivery of this Ruling.
  • Costs of this Application shall be in the cause.

Rules and key headnotes

Civil Procedure — Abatement of Suits — Failure to Take Out Summons for Directions — Whether Abatement Automatic
A suit does not abate automatically under Order 11A Rule 1(6) of the Civil Procedure Rules merely because 28 days have elapsed since the filing of the last reply; the 28-day period begins to run from the date the last reply is served on the plaintiff, not merely filed, and there must be evidence of such service to trigger the abatement provision.
Civil Procedure — Statutory Interpretation — Use of 'Shall' in Legislative Provisions — Mandatory versus Directory
The auxiliary verb 'shall' in a legislative provision should ordinarily be given compulsory meaning as a word of command, but may be construed as directory only where the legislative intention so requires, particularly where no right or benefit accrues to any person or where no public or private right is impaired by a directory interpretation.
Civil Procedure — Amendment of Pleadings — Addition of Parties — Test for Joinder
The court may at any stage of proceedings order the addition of a party whose presence is necessary to enable the court to effectually and completely adjudicate upon and settle all questions involved in the suit, particularly where the proposed party has a significant interest in the case and the orders sought would directly and legally affect that party.
Civil Procedure — Amendment of Pleadings — Addition of Parties — Avoidance of Multiplicity of Suits
Where an amendment to add parties clarifies the existing cause of action by bringing in all necessary parties involved in the chain of transactions giving rise to the dispute, rather than introducing a completely new and inconsistent cause of action, the amendment should be allowed to avoid multiplicity of suits and to enable complete adjudication.

Legislation cited (15)

Cases cited (12)

Cases citing this judgment (1)

How later Ugandan judgments in the Wakilii corpus have cited this case. Treatment labels come from Sequitur — Uganda’s citator — each backed by a verbatim span from the citing judgment, and are not an assertion that this case is, or is not, good law.

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Kireju and Others v Kahwa and Others (HCT-01-LD-MA-0043-2025) [2025] UGHC 545 (14 July 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.