Wakilii

Lindah Nagudi v Keneth Tibasiima and Others (Miscellaneous Application 53 of 2025)

High Court · [2026] UGHC 278 · 2026 Application Granted AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Application for leave to amend plaint in pending civil suit
Decision
Application allowed with leave granted to amend 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

The court held that the application for leave to amend the plaint was not barred by the lis pendens rule under section 6 of the Civil Procedure Act, as the areas sought to be amended differed from those in the earlier application. Under Order 6 rule 19 of the Civil Procedure Rules, amendments should be freely allowed to determine the real questions in controversy unless they cause injustice that cannot be compensated by costs. The application was allowed, but costs were awarded against the applicant for failing to include the prayers in the earlier application.

Outcome

Application allowed with leave granted to amend plaint

Facts

The applicant filed a supplementary application seeking leave to amend her plaint in Civil Suit No. 55 of 2024 to include further particulars of fraud against the 6th respondent and to add a relief for cancellation of the certificate of title in the 6th respondent's name. The applicant had earlier filed Miscellaneous Application No. 13 of 2025 seeking amendments concerning the 2nd and 3rd respondents. The applicant contended that after filing the first application, she obtained more pertinent facts regarding the 6th respondent's procurement of a certificate of title for part of the suit land. The 6th respondent opposed the application, arguing it was an abuse of court process, an afterthought, and would occasion a miscarriage of justice. The 6th respondent raised preliminary objections concerning the filing of additional pleadings after pleadings had closed, the use of a Notice of Motion to supplement Chamber Summons, and whether the application contravened section 6 of the Civil Procedure Act.

Issues

  1. Whether the applicant may file additional pleadings without the court's permission after pleadings had closed.
  2. Whether the applicant can lawfully submit a Notice of Motion as a supplement to Chamber Summons.
  3. Whether this application contravenes section 6 of the Civil Procedure Act.
  4. Whether there are sufficient grounds for amendment of the plaint in Civil Suit No. 55 of 2024.

Orders

  • The applicant is granted leave to amend her plaint to plead further particulars of fraud against the 6th respondent/6th defendant.
  • The applicant is granted leave to plead a further relief of an order for cancellation of the certificate in the names of the 6th respondent/defendant.
  • The amended plaint must be filed within 10 days from the date of delivery of this ruling and served upon all the defendants.
  • The costs of this application shall be borne by the applicant which shall be taxed after determining the head Civil Suit No. 55 of 2024.

Rules and key headnotes

Civil Procedure — Amendment of Pleadings — Supplementary Applications — Distinction from Supplementary Affidavits
Where an applicant files a separate application with a distinct application number rather than a supplementary affidavit to an existing application, the new application is an independent proceeding and questions of leave to file supplementary documents do not arise.
Civil Procedure — Lis Pendens — Section 6 of the Civil Procedure Act — Application to Amendment Applications
For a case to be barred by the lis pendens rule under section 6 of the Civil Procedure Act, the matter in issue must be directly and substantially in issue in a previously instituted suit between the same parties. Where two applications both seek to amend a plaint but target different areas of amendment, the second application is not barred by section 6.
Civil Procedure — Amendment of Pleadings — Principles Governing Grant of Leave — Order 6 Rule 19
Under Order 6 rule 19 of the Civil Procedure Rules, courts should freely allow amendments to pleadings at any stage of proceedings to determine the real questions in controversy between the parties, unless the amendment would cause an injustice to the opposite party that cannot be compensated by costs or would introduce a distinct cause of action in place of the original cause.
Civil Procedure — Costs — Discretion to Depart from General Rule — Misconduct or Avoidable Litigation
Although costs ordinarily follow the event under section 27(2) of the Civil Procedure Act, a successful litigant who has been guilty of misconduct relating to the litigation or whose conduct led to avoidable proceedings may be denied costs or ordered to bear costs.

Legislation cited (7)

Cases cited (4)

  • Springs International Hotel v Hotel Diplomate Ltd and Another (Civil Suit No. 227 of 2011)
  • Mulowooza & Brothers Ltd v N. Shah & Co. Ltd (Civil Appeal No. 26 of 2010)
  • Gaso Transporte Services Ltd v Martin Adala Obene (Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 4 of 1994)
  • Anglo-Cyprian Trade Agencies Ltd v Paphos Wine Industries Ltd [1951] 1 All ER 873

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Lindah Nagudi v Keneth Tibasiima and Others (Miscellaneous Application 53 of 2025) [2026] UGHC 278 (23 February 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.