Wakilii

Marcelo O. Peter v Supreme Medical Centre (CIVIL SUIT NO. 30 OF 2024; MISC. APPLICATION NO. 0019 OF 2024)

High Court · [2026] UGHC 541 · 2026 Application Granted AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Application for leave to amend plaint in underlying civil suit
Decision
Application granted; applicant permitted to amend plaint to correct defendant's name

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 naming of the defendant as Supreme Medical Centre instead of Supreme Medical Centre SMC LTD constituted a misnomer rather than a misidentification. The court distinguished between misnomer, where the identity is known but the name is incorrect, and misidentification, where a completely wrong person is named. Applying the reasonable person test from Davies v Elsby Brothers Ltd, the court found that a reasonable recipient would recognise the intended party despite the name error. The court granted leave to amend the plaint under Order 6 Rule 19 of the Civil Procedure Rules, allowing the addition of 'SMC LTD' to the defendant's name, with each party bearing their own costs.

Outcome

Application granted; applicant permitted to amend plaint to correct defendant's name

Facts

The applicant filed Civil Suit No. 0003 of 2024 against Supreme Medical Centre, his former employer, claiming breach of contract, unlawful termination, salary arrears, and other employment-related reliefs. The applicant's appointment letter dated January 6, 2020, and bank statements showed payments from Supreme Medical Centre. The respondent's counsel acknowledged Supreme Medical Centre as their client in correspondence dated January 11, 2024. However, the Uganda Registration Services Bureau records showed that Supreme Medical Centre was incorporated as Supreme Medical Centre SMC LTD on May 25, 2023. The applicant sought leave to amend the plaint to add 'SMC LTD' to the defendant's name. The respondent opposed, arguing the application was against a non-existent party and that the defect could not be cured by amendment. The respondent filed preliminary objections that the suit was filed against a non-existent entity and was therefore a nullity.

Issues

  1. Whether leave should be granted to the applicant to amend his plaint to add the words 'SMC LTD' to the defendant's name.
  2. Whether there was a bona fide mistake in the naming of the defendant/respondent.
  3. Whether the application is against a non-existent party and therefore a nullity.

Orders

  • The applicant is granted leave to amend the plaint in Civil Suit No. 0003 of 2024 and to add the words 'SMC LTD' to the defendant.
  • Each party shall bear the costs of this application.

Rules and key headnotes

Civil Procedure — Amendment of Pleadings — Misnomer versus Misidentification
A misnomer occurs when the identity of a party is known but they are given an incorrect name, whereas a misidentification happens when a completely wrong person is named instead of the intended individual. A misnomer can be corrected by amendment, but a misidentification cannot.
Civil Procedure — Amendment of Pleadings — Reasonable Person Test for Misnomer
The test for determining whether a naming error constitutes a misnomer is whether a reasonable person receiving the document would say 'Of course it must mean me, but they have got my name wrong.' If the reasonable person cannot tell from the document whether it refers to them and must make inquiries, or if there is another entity to whom the description might refer, the error goes beyond mere misnomer.
Civil Procedure — Amendment of Pleadings — Discretion of Court under Order 6 Rule 19
Under Order 6 Rule 19 of the Civil Procedure Rules, the court may permit a party to amend their pleadings at any stage of proceedings in a manner and under terms that are just, provided the amendment does not prejudice the other party and is intended to clarify the real issues in dispute between the parties.
Civil Procedure — Preliminary Objections — Timing under Order 6 Rule 28
Under Order 6 Rule 28 of the Civil Procedure Rules, the court may address any legal issues raised as preliminary objections and decide on them at any stage before the hearing on the merits.

Legislation cited (6)

Cases cited (5)

  • Reliable African Insurance Agencies v National Insurance Corporation [1979] HCB 59
  • Waswa Primo v Moulders Ltd (Miscellaneous Application No. 0685 of 2017)
  • A.C Yafeng Construction Limited v The Registered Trustees of Living Word Assembly Church (HC Miscellaneous Application No. 0001 of 2021)
  • J B Kohli and Ors v Bachulal Popatlal [1964] 1 EA 219
  • Davies v Elsby Brothers Ltd [1960] 3 All ER 676

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Marcelo O. Peter v Supreme Medical Centre (CIVIL SUIT NO. 30 OF 2024; MISC. APPLICATION NO. 0019 OF 2024) [2026] UGHC 541 (28 April 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.