Wakilii

Muhindo v Kasese District Local Government and 2 Others (Miscellaneous Application 31 of 2023)

High Court · [2023] UGHCLD 281 · 2023 Application Granted AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Interlocutory application for leave to amend plaint and add parties in ongoing civil suit
Decision
Application granted with leave to amend plaint and add parties

Observed later treatment

Cited — treatment unverified cited in 2 (treatment unverified) Sequitur — Uganda’s citator · Derived from citing cases in the Wakilii corpus — not an assertion that this case is good law.

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.

No adverse treatment recorded Cited 2 times with no adverse treatment recorded; not yet tested on the merits. Derived from citing cases in the Wakilii corpus — a deterministic signal, not legal advice.

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 the plaint and add the Attorney General and Commissioner Land Registration as defendants. The court held that an affidavit deponed by an advocate from the applicant's law firm was not defective under regulation 9 of the Advocates (Professional Conduct) Regulations where a different advocate from the same firm appeared in court, and that facts discovered on perusal of the file were matters within the deponent's knowledge. The court applied the principles from Gaso Transport Services and found the amendment would determine the real controversy, avoid multiplicity of proceedings, and cause no injustice.

Outcome

Application granted with leave to amend plaint and add parties

Facts

The applicant filed Civil Suit No. 28 of 2020 against Kasese District Local Government seeking a declaration of ownership over approximately 37 acres of land, permanent injunction, damages, and cancellation of title. The applicant later instructed new advocates who discovered that Uganda People's Defense Forces (UPDF) had established barracks on the suit land and buried people who died in the 2016 Rwenzururu Palace crossfire without compensation. Uganda Prisons Services had also established a prison on the land without compensation. The applicant sought leave to amend the plaint to add the Attorney General and Commissioner Land Registration as defendants. The first respondent opposed on grounds that the affidavit was defective, being deponed by an advocate from the firm representing the applicant, and that the amendment would introduce a new cause of action.

Issues

  1. Whether the affidavit in support of the application is defective.
  2. Whether the applicant should be granted leave to amend the plaint.

Orders

  • The Applicant shall file and serve an amended plaint within 15 days from the date of delivery of this ruling.
  • The defendants shall file and serve their respective written statements of defense within 15 days from the date of service.
  • A reply to the written statement of defense if any shall be filed within 10 days from the date of service.
  • The case is accordingly fixed for mention on the 10th of July 2023.
  • Each party shall bear own costs.

Rules and key headnotes

Civil Procedure — Affidavits — Advocate as Deponent — Regulation 9 of Advocates (Professional Conduct) Regulations
Regulation 9 of the Advocates (Professional Conduct) Regulations S.I 267-2 does not bar an advocate from deponing an affidavit on matters within his or her knowledge; it bars an advocate from appearing before court in personal conduct of a matter in which he or she will be required as a witness in contentious proceedings. Where an advocate from a law firm depones an affidavit but a different advocate from the same firm appears in court, there is no contravention of regulation 9.
Civil Procedure — Affidavits — Personal Knowledge — Order 19 Rule 3 — Facts Within Advocate's Knowledge
Under Order 19 rule 3(1) of the Civil Procedure Rules, affidavits shall be confined to facts within the deponent's own knowledge. An advocate is not prohibited from swearing an affidavit on matters well within his or her knowledge. Where an advocate depones to facts discovered on perusal of the client's file and documentary evidence, such facts are within the advocate's knowledge and the affidavit is not based on hearsay.
Civil Procedure — Amendment of Pleadings — Principles Governing Leave to Amend
Under Order 6 rule 19 of the Civil Procedure Rules, the court may allow amendment of pleadings at any stage to determine the real questions in controversy between the parties. Leave to amend will be granted where the amendment does not work injustice to the other side, avoids multiplicity of proceedings, is not made mala fide, and is not prohibited by law. Adding parties to a suit does not introduce a new cause of action where the underlying claim remains the same.

Legislation cited (6)

Cases cited (11)

  • Banco Arabe Espanol v Bank of Uganda (Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 8 of 1998)
  • David Mutyaba Sgulani and Another v Eriabu Sebyatika and Another (High Court Civil Revision No. 5 of 2018)
  • Kasaija Robert v Nasser Iga and Another (Miscellaneous Cause No. 4 of 2016)
  • Three Ways Shipping Services (Group) Ltd v MTN (U) Ltd (Miscellaneous Application No. 584 of 2013)
  • Electro Max Uganda Ltd v Oryx Oil Uganda Ltd (High Court Miscellaneous Application No. 25 of 2021)
  • Uganda Development Bank v Kasirye Byaruhanga & Co. Advocates (Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 35 of 1994)
  • Businge and Another v Gianluigi and Another (High Court Miscellaneous Application No. 203 of 2013)
  • Mbarara Municipal Council v Jetha Brothers Ltd (Supreme Court Miscellaneous Application No. 10 of 2021)
  • Cropper v Smith (1884) 26 Ch. D. 700 (CA)
  • Gaso Transport Services Limited v Martin Adala Obene (Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 4 of 1994)
  • Okello Wilbert v Obel Ronald (High Court Miscellaneous Application No. 97 of 2020)

Cases citing this judgment (2)

How later Ugandan judgments in the Wakilii corpus have cited this case. Treatment labels come from Sequitur — Uganda’s citator — each backed by a verbatim span from the citing judgment, and are not an assertion that this case is, or is not, good law.

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Muhindo_v_Kasese_District_Local_Government_and_2_Others_(Miscellaneous_Application_31_of_2023)_[2023]_UGHCLD_281_(30_June_2023)
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.