Wakilii

Lucy Nsubuga v John Kajoba and Another (Miscellaneous Application 242 of 2026)

High Court · [2026] UGHCLD 52 · 2026 Application Granted AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Application for leave to amend Written Statement of Defence in ongoing civil suit arising from land dispute
Decision
Application granted with leave to amend defence and directions for further pleadings

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 High Court granted the applicant leave to amend her Written Statement of Defence under Order 6 rule 19 of the Civil Procedure Rules. The court held that mistakes of counsel should not be visited upon the litigant and that amendments should be allowed where necessary to determine the real questions in controversy between the parties, provided they do not cause prejudice that cannot be compensated by costs.

Outcome

Application granted with leave to amend defence and directions for further pleadings

Facts

The applicant, Lucy Nsubuga, was sued in Civil Suit No. 432 of 2008 in her capacity as administrator pendente lite of the estate of Bishop D. Nsubuga concerning land comprised in Kibuga Block 7 Plots 749 and 750 at Mengo, Ndeeba. Two different Written Statements of Defence were filed by two different law firms. The applicant alleged that the defence filed by M/S Ambrose Tebyasa & Co. Advocates admitted that her late husband's signatures were forged and denied his ownership of the suit land, which she believed was done in bad faith. The suit proceeded and judgment was entered against her. She successfully applied for review in Civil Application No. 115 of 2020, and the judgment was set aside with the suit ordered to be heard afresh. The Court of Appeal upheld this decision. She now sought leave to amend the defence to remove incorrect facts and clarify that the signatures were not forged.

Issues

  1. Whether the Applicant should be granted leave to amend her Written Statement of Defence
  2. What remedies are available to the parties

Orders

  • Application allowed.
  • The Applicant shall file and serve an Amended Written Statement of Defence by 26th March 2026.
  • The Respondents shall file any amended pleadings or a rejoinder, if any, by 2nd April 2026.
  • Costs shall be in the cause.

Rules and key headnotes

Civil Procedure — Amendment of Pleadings — Discretion of Court
The court has discretion under Order 6 rule 19 of the Civil Procedure Rules to allow amendments to pleadings at any stage of proceedings in order to determine the real questions in controversy between the parties.
Civil Procedure — Amendment of Pleadings — Principles for Allowing Amendment
For an amendment to be allowed, it must satisfy several principles including: the amendment should be without prejudice to the other party; it should not substitute a distinctive cause of action or change the subject matter of the suit; it should not work injustice to the other party beyond what can be compensated by costs; it must be necessary for determining the real questions in controversy; it should avoid multiplicity of proceedings; it must not be made malafide; and it must not be prohibited by law.
Civil Procedure — Amendment of Pleadings — Mistakes of Counsel
Mistakes of counsel should not ordinarily be visited upon the litigant, and where an amendment seeks to correct errors made by former counsel without introducing new issues or causing prejudice that cannot be compensated by costs, leave to amend should be granted.

Legislation cited (6)

Cases cited (5)

  • Matagala Vincent v Uganda Revenue Authority (Miscellaneous Application No. 25 of 2013)
  • Modi Spinning & Weaving Mills Co. Ltd Vs Ladha Ram & Co. 1977 AIR 680
  • Ram Nirangan Kajaria Vs Heo Prukash Kajari & Ors 2015 AIR
  • Jayanth Amratlal Bhimji & Anor v Prime Finance Co. Ltd (High Court Miscellaneous Application No. 225 of 2008)
  • Sepinja Kyamulesire v Justine Bikandulila Baganbe (Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 20 of 1995)

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Lucy_Nsubuga_v_John_Kajoba_and_Another_(Miscellaneous_Application_242_of_2026)_[2026]_UGHCLD_52_(18_March_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.