Wakilii

Mulago Hill Diagnostics Limited v Lydia Turyahumura and Others (Miscellaneous Application No. 2221 of 2025)

High Court · [2026] UGHCLD 96 · 2026 Application Granted in Part AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Interlocutory application arising from Civil Suit 856 of 2018 seeking leave to add a third respondent as defendant and to amend the plaint
Decision
Application granted in part — third respondent to be added as defendant and plaint to be amended to reflect this addition; application to add new substantive claims dismissed

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 add the third respondent as a defendant in the main suit and to amend the plaint accordingly, finding that the third respondent had purchased land subject to the dispute and his presence was necessary for effective adjudication. The court overruled a preliminary objection that the applicant's director lacked authority to swear the affidavit, holding that proof of directorship is not required unless contested. The court declined to allow amendment to add new claims not specifically prayed for in the application.

Outcome

Application granted in part — third respondent to be added as defendant and plaint to be amended to reflect this addition; application to add new substantive claims dismissed

Facts

The applicant claimed to be the equitable owner of land at Mulago (Block 29, Plots 1128 and 1129) and alleged that an access road to its garage was unlawfully enclosed by the first and second respondents in 2018, prompting Civil Suit 856 of 2018. After the suit was filed, the first and second respondents (administrators of an estate) transferred the neighboring land (Block 29, Plots 1126 and 1127, formerly Plot 92) to the third respondent on 25 November 2024. The applicant sought to add the third respondent as a defendant and to amend the plaint to include claims of adverse possession and exclusive use of the access road. The third respondent raised a preliminary objection that the applicant's director had not proven his authority to swear the affidavit in support.

Issues

  1. Whether the Applicant should be granted leave to add the 3rd Respondent as a Defendant in Civil Suit No. 856 of 2018.
  2. Whether the Applicant should be granted leave to amend the plaint in Civil Suit No. 856 of 2018 to reflect the 3rd Respondent as a Defendant.

Orders

  • The Applicant is granted leave to add the 3rd Respondent as a Defendant in Civil Suit No. 856 of 2018.
  • The Applicant is granted leave to amend the plaint in Civil Suit No. 856 of 2018 to reflect the 3rd Respondent as the 3rd Defendant.
  • The Applicant is not granted leave by this Court to amend the plaint to include material claims which the Applicant claims were left out of the original plaint by its previous lawyers.
  • The Applicant/Plaintiff shall file an amended Plaint in court and serve the same on all the Defendants by 20th May, 2026.
  • The Plaintiff and Defendants shall observe the time lines for filing their respective pleadings as provided for in the Civil Procedure Rules.
  • The costs shall abide the outcome of the main suit.

Rules and key headnotes

Civil Procedure — Joinder of Parties — Addition of Necessary Parties
A person who acquires property that is subject to ongoing litigation must be joined as a party where the orders sought would legally affect their interests, to enable the court to effectually and completely adjudicate upon all questions involved in the suit and to avoid multiplicity of proceedings.
Civil Procedure — Affidavits — Capacity of Director to Swear Affidavit on Behalf of Company
Where there is no dispute as to the directorship of a person in a company, it is not a mandatory requirement that such director attach evidence of their position in the company to have capacity to swear an affidavit on behalf of the company; an averment in the affidavit stating their position suffices as evidence unless contested.
Civil Procedure — Amendment of Pleadings — Scope of Relief Granted
A court will not grant leave to amend pleadings to include claims that were not specifically prayed for in the notice of motion, even where such claims are mentioned in the supporting affidavit, as the court is bound by the specific orders sought in the application.

Legislation cited (11)

Cases cited (9)

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Mulago_Hill_Diagnostics_Limited_v_Lydia_Turyahumura_and_Others_(Miscellaneous_Application_No._2221_of_2025)_[2026]_UGHCLD_96_(17_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.