Wakilii

Luyima Hood v Mamtaz Ismail (Miscellaneous Application 33 of 2025)

High Court · [2025] UGHC 769 · 2025 Application Granted AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Oral application for leave to amend affidavit in support of miscellaneous application arising from civil suit
Decision
Leave to amend affidavit granted

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 granted leave to amend paragraph 11 of an affidavit in support by replacing 'my application' with 'instant application'. The court held that the impugned paragraph did not contain an averment of fact and therefore did not constitute evidence, falling within the recognized exception allowing amendment of affidavits. The amendment corrected a drafting error where the deponent, an advocate, incorrectly used 'my application' when the application belonged to the applicant. Denying the amendment would elevate form over substance.

Outcome

Leave to amend affidavit granted

Facts

The Applicant filed Miscellaneous Application No. 33 of 2025 seeking orders that the Plaint in Civil Suit No. 066 of 2024 be rejected and the suit dismissed with costs. At the hearing on 4 June 2025, Counsel for the Applicant sought leave to amend paragraph 11 of the Affidavit in Support by replacing 'my application' with 'instant application'. The affidavit had been sworn by Nankumbi Stella Kevin, an advocate representing the Applicant Luyima Hood. Paragraph 11 stated 'THAT I swear this affidavit in support of my application to strike out Civil Suit No. 0066 of 2024'. Counsel for the Respondent objected to the amendment. The error arose because the deponent was the advocate, not the applicant, creating a drafting inconsistency in the use of 'my application'.

Issues

  1. Whether the Applicant should be granted leave to amend paragraph 11 of the Affidavit in Support of the Application.

Orders

  • Application to amend paragraph 11 of the Affidavit in Support of the Application is granted.

Rules and key headnotes

Civil Procedure — Affidavits — Amendment — General Rule Against Amendment
Generally, the amendment of an affidavit is not permitted since the affidavit contains evidence which cannot be subjected to amendment, and the option usually available to a party that wishes to amend is to file an additional affidavit, though exceptions may exist.
Evidence — Affidavits — Structure and Components — What Constitutes Evidence
An affidavit comprises five components: commencement (identification of affiant), averments (claims made by affiant), statement of truth, attestation clause, and signatures. Evidence is found only in the averment component of an affidavit, not in the entire document.
Civil Procedure — Affidavits — Amendment — Exception for Non-Evidential Paragraphs
Where a paragraph in an affidavit does not contain any averment of fact and cannot be treated as evidence, but rather constitutes a statement of truth or continuation of the introductory part, it falls within the recognized exception which allows for amendment of affidavits.
Civil Procedure — Amendment — Substance Over Form — Correction of Drafting Errors
Courts should not rigidly adhere to technicalities at the expense of substantive justice. Where an application seeks to amend a drafting error that does not affect the substance of an affidavit, the amendment should be allowed to enable each party's case to be properly and fully presented, rather than elevating form over substance.

Cases cited (2)

  • Oyiki and Others v Kampala University (Miscellaneous Cause No. 129 of 2022)
  • Attorney General of the Republic of Burundi v Niyongabo Theodre and Another (Application No. 06 of 2022)

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Luyima Hood v Mamtaz Ismail (Miscellaneous Application 33 of 2025) [2025] UGHC 769 (26 August 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.