Wakilii

Mhozya v A.G. of Tanzania (Application 13 of 2016)

East African Court of Justice · Mhozya v A.G. of Tanzania (Application 13 of 2016) [2017] EACJ 110 (7 July 2017) · 2017 Application Dismissed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Application for review of interlocutory order granting leave to amend response to reference
Decision
Application for review dismissed; interlocutory order granting leave to amend stands

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 dismissed the application for review of an interlocutory order granting leave to amend a response. The court held that Rule 48(c) read with Rule 50(1) permits oral applications for leave to amend pleadings at any stage of proceedings, exercisable at the court's discretion to determine the real question in controversy. Rule 21(2) and (3) was inapplicable but this did not invalidate the proceedings. The preliminary objection based on alleged lies was overruled as it raised matters of fact, not law. No prejudice was caused to the applicant who was given opportunity to respond to the amended pleading.

Outcome

Application for review dismissed; interlocutory order granting leave to amend stands

Facts

The applicant filed Reference No. 2 of 2016 alleging widespread office hooliganism and conspiracy by Tanzanian government officials. On 21 November 2016, during a scheduled scheduling conference which the applicant did not attend, the respondent's counsel made an oral application for leave to amend the response to the reference. The court granted leave and directed the amended response to be filed within fourteen days. The applicant, dissatisfied with this order, filed an application for review arguing that the respondent's counsel had not indicated any intention to seek amendment when they signed draft scheduling conference notes, that the wrong rules were invoked, and that irreparable injustice had been occasioned. The respondent filed a preliminary objection alleging the applicant's affidavit contained lies.

Issues

  1. Whether the order granting leave to amend the respondent's response to the reference was properly obtained.
  2. Whether the preliminary objection based on alleged lies in the applicant's affidavit should be sustained.
  3. Whether the court properly invoked Rules 21(2) and (3) and Rule 48(c) in granting leave to amend.

Orders

  • Application dismissed.
  • Each party to bear its own costs.

Rules and key headnotes

Civil Procedure — Preliminary Objections — Requirements — Must be based on pure point of law
A preliminary objection must be premised on a pure point of law where the facts are uncontested; allegations of lies or truth are matters of evidence requiring interrogation and cross-examination, not matters suitable for preliminary objection.
Civil Procedure — Amendment of Pleadings — Leave to Amend — Oral Applications
Under Rule 48(c) read with Rule 50(1) of the East African Court of Justice Rules of Procedure, leave to amend pleadings may be sought by oral application at any stage of proceedings; the formality requirements of Rule 50(3) requiring written applications do not apply to informal or oral applications made under the court's discretionary power.
Civil Procedure — Amendment of Pleadings — Purpose and Discretion
The court has discretionary power to allow amendment of pleadings at any stage of proceedings for the purpose of determining the real question in controversy between the parties; that discretionary power must be exercised judiciously with due consideration of all facts and circumstances to do justice to the case.
Civil Procedure — Amendment of Pleadings — Prejudice
No prejudice is caused by granting leave to amend a pleading where the opposing party is given adequate opportunity to formally respond to the amended pleading and to challenge any new issues raised at the hearing of the substantive matter.

Cases cited (3)

  • Mukisa Biscuits v West End Bakery [1969] EA 696
  • Ignazio Messina v Willow Investments SPRL (Civil Application No. 21 of 2001)
  • Johnson Akal Omunyokol v Attorney General of Uganda (Application No. 3 of 2016)

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Mhozya v A.G. of Tanzania (Application 13 of 2016) [2017] EACJ 110 (7 July 2017)
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.