Mukalazi Samuel Balukusa v Nansubuga Hanifah (Miscellaneous Application No. 126 of 2025)
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
Held that the High Court has wide discretionary powers under Order 6 Rule 19 of the Civil Procedure Rules to permit amendment of pleadings at any stage. The court allowed the applicant to amend his written statement of defence and add a counterclaim, finding that denying the amendment would be unjust and lead to multiplicity of suits. The respondent would have opportunity to respond and would not be prejudiced.
Outcome
Leave granted to amend written statement of defence and add counterclaim
Facts
The applicant brought an application seeking leave to amend his written statement of defence in Civil Suit No. 120 of 2024 to include a counterclaim, substantiate his defence, and attach omitted annexures. The applicant stated he was unrepresented when filing the initial defence and omitted material facts and documents including transfer forms and sale agreements. The main suit concerned breach of contract relating to land, with the applicant claiming ownership of half an acre out of two acres in dispute. The respondent opposed the application, arguing that no draft amendment was attached, that a counterclaim cannot be added by amendment as it did not exist in the original defence, and that the application was brought after she had already filed witness statements and trial bundles.
Issues
- Whether the applicant should be granted leave to amend his written statement of defence?
- What remedies are available to the parties?
Orders
- Application allowed.
- The amendment should be filed within two weeks from the date of delivery of this ruling and served on the respondent immediately.
- The respondent is given two weeks to respond to the amendment.
- Each party will bear their own costs in this application.
Rules and key headnotes
Legislation cited (4)
- Civil Procedure Act s.98
- Judicature Act s.37
- Civil Procedure Rules O.6 r.19
- Civil Procedure Rules O.6 r.31
Cases cited (4)
- Gaso Transport Services (Bus) Ltd v Martin Adala Obene (SCCA No. 4 of 1994)
- Nabugabo Updeal JV v Bin It Services Limited (Miscellaneous Application No. 297 of 2016)
- Johnson Akol Omunyokol v Attorney General (Miscellaneous Application No. 3 of 2016)
- Kibuuka Emmanuel & Another v Nanyanzi Margret & 3 Others (Miscellaneous Application No. 3745 of 2023)
Full judgment
The original judgment as reported. Read the original PDF before relying on any passage.