Wakilii

Mugenyi and Another v Makerere University and 2 Others (Civil Miscellaneous Application No. 1799 of 2020)

High Court · [2021] UGHCLD 136 · 2021 Application Granted AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Application for leave to file amended plaint out of time arising from Civil Suit No. 765 of 2017
Decision
Application granted with directions for filing of amended 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 leave to the applicants to file an amended plaint out of time. The court held that where a party fails to comply with timelines for filing amended pleadings due to lack of notice of the ruling, and the respondents do not object, the court should exercise its discretion to extend time. Amendments should be freely allowed provided they do not occasion injustice to the opposite party and are made in good faith.

Outcome

Application granted with directions for filing of amended pleadings

Facts

The applicants had been granted leave to amend their plaint in Civil Suit No. 765 of 2017 with timelines for filing. The trial judge delivered the ruling without notice to the applicants during the COVID-19 lockdown, communicating it by email. The applicants and their lawyers were unaware of this mode of communication and did not receive the ruling until a routine check of the court file later revealed a hard copy after the delivery date. As a result, the applicants could not file the amended plaint within the timelines given by the court. The applicants sought leave to file the amended plaint out of time. The respondents, Makerere University and the Commissioner Land Registration, were served with the application but did not oppose it.

Issues

  1. Whether the applicants should be granted leave to file the amended plaint out of time.

Orders

  • Leave granted to allow the applicants to amend the plaint.
  • Amended plaint to be filed and served within two weeks after the date of delivering this ruling.
  • Amended defence to be served and filed within two weeks after receiving the amended plaint.
  • Rejoinder, if any, to be filed after one week of receiving the amended defence.
  • Costs in the cause.

Rules and key headnotes

Civil Procedure — Amendment of Pleadings — Extension of Time — Order 6 rule 25
Where leave is granted to a party to amend pleadings within a limited time but the party does not do so within the set time, the party would not be allowed to amend unless the time is extended by court under Order 6 rule 25 of the Civil Procedure Rules.
Civil Procedure — Amendment of Pleadings — Discretion of Court — Guiding Principles
The court has wide discretion to allow amendments to pleadings at any time, taking into account that the amendment should not occasion injustice to the opposite party, should be granted if it is in the interest of avoiding multiplicity of suits, must be made in good faith, and must not be expressly or impliedly prohibited by law.
Civil Procedure — Amendment of Pleadings — Liberal Approach — Compensation by Costs
An amendment should be freely allowed provided it is not made so late in the proceedings that it would be unjust to the opposite party, and there would be no injustice if the other party can be compensated for by costs.
Civil Procedure — Amendment of Pleadings — Major Consideration — Prejudice to Opposite Party
The major consideration in granting an application for amendment of pleadings is whether or not it would be unjust or prejudicial to the opposite party; otherwise it should freely be granted.

Legislation cited (6)

Cases cited (4)

  • Gaso Transport Ltd v Martin Adala Obene (Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 4 of 1994)
  • Eastern Bakery v. Castellino (supra)
  • Wamayi v Interfreight Forwarders (U) Ltd [1990] II KALR 67
  • Steven Kigozi Makubya v Barclays Bank of Uganda Limited (Miscellaneous Application No. 66 of 2013)

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Mugenyi_and_Another_v_Makerere_University_and_2_Others_(Civil_Miscellaneous_Application_No._1799_of_2020)_[2021]_UGHCLD_136_(27_September_2021)
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.