Lubinga Charles v Kawuki Tadeo and Others (Miscellaneous Application No. 0240 of 2026)
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 leave to amend a plaint should be granted where the amendment enables the court to determine the real questions in controversy without causing injustice to the other party, multiplicity of proceedings is avoided, and the application is made in good faith. The court found that counsel's oversight in omitting material facts should not be visited upon the litigant, and that the proposed amendment did not introduce a new cause of action but merely particularised the existing defamation claim. Prejudice to the respondent could be compensated by costs.
Outcome
Leave to amend granted; applicant to file amended plaint within 7 days; respondents to file amended defence within 15 days thereafter
Facts
The applicant filed Civil Suit No. 0095 of 2025 against the respondents for defamation. The applicant's initial counsel, Dyadi & Co. Advocates, filed the plaint but allegedly omitted material facts, specifically the actual defamatory statements made against the applicant during a council meeting held on 16 November 2024. The council minutes allegedly stated that the applicant borrowed/lent money and called security agents to arrest borrowers, taking them to places he claimed were courts, and that members noted the applicant was a threat and criminal who tortured people and stole their money. The applicant later instructed new counsel, Lukwago & Co. Advocates, who identified the omissions and filed this application for leave to amend the plaint to include these particulars. The 3rd respondent opposed the application, arguing that the original plaint disclosed no cause of action and that the amendment was an afterthought designed to defeat their intended preliminary objections.
Issues
- Whether grant of leave to amend is justified in the circumstances.
- What remedies are available for the parties.
Orders
- The Applicant is granted leave to amend his Plaint as indicated in the draft amended Plaint.
- The Applicant is given 7 days from the date of this ruling to file and serve his amended Plaint.
- The Respondents are granted 15 days to file and serve their amended written statement of defence from the date of service of the Amended Plaint.
- The costs of this Application shall abide the outcome of the main suit.
Rules and key headnotes
Legislation cited (4)
Cases cited (10)
- Gaso Transporters Services Ltd v Obene (Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 4 of 1994)
- Nemusisi Yozefina v David Kikaawa (Miscellaneous Application No. 1595 of 2018)
- Yowane Kahere and Another v Lunyo Estates Ltd [1959] 1 EA 319
- Namugosa Joyce v Nabwono Kanyole (Civil Appeal No. 031 of 2016)
- Mulowooza & Brothers Ltd v Shah & Co. Ltd [2011] UGSC 29
- Amit Jain v Hon. Lokii Peter Abrahams (Miscellaneous Application No. 0695 of 2019)
- Gaso Transport Services (Bus) Ltd v Obene [1990-94] EA 88
- Muwolooza & Brothers v N. Shah & Co. Ltd (Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 26 of 2010)
- Banco Arabe Espanol v Bank of Uganda (Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 8 of 1998)
- Godfrey Magezi and Erian Mbazira v Sudhir Ruparella (Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 10 of 2002)
Full judgment
The original judgment as reported. Read the original PDF before relying on any passage.