Wakilii

Kiwanuka v Centinary Rural Development Bank Limited and 2 Others (Miscellaneous Application 232 of 2022)

High Court · [2023] UGHCCD 345 · 2023 Application Granted AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Application for joinder of parties and leave to amend plaint arising from Civil Suit No. 291 of 2018
Decision
Application allowed with orders for joinder of parties and amendment of plaint

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: The affidavits in reply were competently before court as the specific timeline rules do not apply to interlocutory applications where affidavits are filed before the hearing date. The 2nd and 3rd respondents, as purchasers of mortgaged properties forming the subject matter of the main suit, have a direct legal interest and should be joined as defendants. Leave to amend the plaint was granted to correct a misnomer in the 1st respondent's name, properly particularise fraud, and introduce an alternative prayer, as these amendments were necessary to determine the real questions in controversy without introducing a new cause of action.

Outcome

Application allowed with orders for joinder of parties and amendment of plaint

Facts

The applicant, a self-represented litigant who filed Civil Suit No. 291 of 2018 while in prison, sought to add the 2nd and 3rd respondents as defendants and amend his plaint. The applicant had mortgaged properties to the 1st respondent bank, which subsequently sold the properties to the 2nd and 3rd respondents upon the applicant's default. The original plaint contained a misnomer in the 1st respondent's name (referred to as Centenary Bank instead of Centenary Rural Development Bank Ltd) and failed to properly particularize fraud allegations. The applicant sought to correct these defects and add the purchasers of the mortgaged properties as parties, arguing their presence was necessary for complete adjudication of the dispute.

Issues

  1. Whether the respondents' affidavits in reply were properly before court having been filed out of time.
  2. Whether the 2nd and 3rd respondents should be added as defendants to Civil Suit No. 291 of 2018.
  3. Whether the applicant should be granted leave to file an amended plaint.

Orders

  • The 2nd and 3rd Respondents shall be joined as defendants in Civil Suit No. 291 of 2018.
  • The Applicant is allowed to amend the plaint in Civil Suit No. 291 of 2018 in the terms and upon the matters highlighted in this application.
  • The amended plaint shall be served onto the defendants within 15 days from the date of this order together with fresh summons to file a defence.
  • The costs of this application shall abide the outcome of the main suit.

Rules and key headnotes

Civil Procedure — Interlocutory Applications — Timelines for Filing Affidavits in Reply
Where the Civil Procedure Rules do not provide specific timelines for filing affidavits in reply to interlocutory applications, the court should exercise discretion to allow affidavits filed before the hearing date, provided they afford the adverse party a fair opportunity to respond and no substantial prejudice is occasioned.
Civil Procedure — Joinder of Parties — Test for Necessary Party
A person should be joined as a party to a suit where that person has a high interest in the case, or where the orders sought would directly or legally affect that person, or where it is desirable to avoid multiplicity of suits, or where the orders made in the suit would bind that person.
Land & Property — Mortgages — Joinder of Purchasers of Mortgaged Property
Where a mortgagee has exercised its power of sale and sold mortgaged properties to third parties, those purchasers must be joined as parties to any suit challenging the mortgagee's conduct, as any order affecting the sale would directly and legally affect the purchasers' interests regardless of whether they were privy to the original mortgage transaction.
Civil Procedure — Amendment of Pleadings — Misnomer in Party Names
Where a party is sued under a name by which it commonly trades and there is no doubt as to the party's identity, the use of that trading name instead of the full legal name constitutes a mere misnomer that can be rectified by amendment without occasioning any miscarriage of justice.
Civil Procedure — Amendment of Pleadings — Principles Governing Grant of Leave
The court may allow amendment of pleadings at any stage of proceedings where the amendment is necessary to determine the real questions in controversy, does not introduce a new cause of action or substitute one distinctive cause of action for another, does not work an injustice that cannot be compensated by costs, avoids multiplicity of proceedings, and is not made malafide or expressly prohibited by law.

Legislation cited (8)

Cases cited (16)

  • Samson Sempasa v P.K Sengendo (High Court Miscellaneous Application No. 577 of 2013)
  • Kololo Curing Co. Ltd v West Mengo Co-operative Union [1980] HCB 60
  • Stop and See (U) Ltd v Tropical Africa Bank Ltd (Miscellaneous Application No. 333 of 2010)
  • Dr. Lam Lagoro v Muni University (Miscellaneous Cause No. 007 of 2016)
  • Departed Asians Property Custodian Board v Jaffer Brothers Ltd (Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 9 of 1998)
  • Amon v Raphael Tuck & Sons Ltd [1956] 1 All ER 273
  • Alley Route Ltd v Uganda Development Bank (High Court Miscellaneous Application No. 459 of 2007)
  • Lea Associates Limited v Bunga Hill House Ltd (High Court Civil Miscellaneous Application No. 348 of 2008)
  • Kampala Bottlers v Domanico (U) Ltd (Court of Appeal No. 22 of 1992)
  • Lubega v Barclays Bank (1990-94) EA 294
  • Okello v UNEB (Court of Appeal No. 12 of 1987)
  • Iddi Ouma & Another v UNEB (High Court Civil Suit No. 159 of 2018)
  • Trustees of Rubaga Miracle Centre v Mulangira Simbwa (High Court Miscellaneous Application No. 576 of 2006)
  • Gaso Transport Services (Bus) Ltd v Obene (1990-1994) EA 88
  • Mulowooza & Brothers Ltd v Shah & Co. Ltd (Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 26 of 2010)
  • Nicholas Serunkuma Ssewagudde & 2 Others v Namasole Namusoke Namatovu Veronica (High Court Miscellaneous Application No. 1307 of 2016)

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Kiwanuka v Centinary Rural Development Bank Limited and 2 Others (Miscellaneous Application 232 of 2022) [2023] UGHCCD 345 (7 November 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.