Wakilii

Multi Consult Designs Ltd v SGS Uganda Ltd (Miscellaneous Application No. 82 of 2025)

High Court · [2025] UGCOMMC 260 · 2025 Application Granted AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Application for leave to amend plaint in pending civil suit
Decision
Leave to amend granted with costs against the applicant

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 granted leave to amend the plaint to include particulars of negligence, holding that the proposed amendment arose from the same factual matrix as the original breach of contract claim and did not substitute a wholly distinct cause of action. While the amendment was late and the applicant provided no plausible explanation for the delay, it did not occasion irreparable prejudice to the respondent, who retained the right to amend its defence. The applicant was penalised in costs for the inexcusable delay.

Outcome

Leave to amend granted with costs against the applicant

Facts

The applicant instituted Civil Suit No. 0672 of 2020 against the respondent for breach of contract, seeking special and general damages. The applicant had ordered 596.05 square meters of aluminium cladding and contracted the respondent to carry out pre-shipment verification and inspection. On 5 November 2019, the respondent issued a Certificate of Conformity certifying all goods. Upon arrival in Uganda, the applicant discovered a shortage of 72 pieces or 107.05 square meters. The applicant now sought leave to amend its plaint to include allegations of negligence in the respondent's inspection and verification. The respondent opposed, arguing the amendment introduced a wholly new cause of action and was brought after an inordinate delay of over two years since the last pre-trial steps were completed in November 2022.

Issues

  1. Whether the applicant should be granted leave to amend its plaint in Civil Suit No. 0672 of 2020 to include allegations of negligence.

Orders

  • Application allowed.
  • The Applicant is granted leave to amend its plaint in Civil Suit No. 0672 of 2020 to include the particulars of negligence as prayed.
  • The amended plaint shall be filed and served within seven (7) days from the date of this ruling.
  • The Respondent is at liberty to amend its written statement of defence within fourteen (14) days from the date of service of the amended plaint.
  • The Applicant shall pay the costs of this application.

Rules and key headnotes

Civil Procedure — Amendment of Pleadings — Discretion of Court — Principles
The court has discretion under Section 100 of the Civil Procedure Act and Order 6 Rule 19 of the Civil Procedure Rules to allow amendments to pleadings at any stage of proceedings where necessary to determine the real questions in controversy between the parties, provided the amendment does not occasion injustice to the opposing party that cannot be compensated by costs.
Civil Procedure — Amendment of Pleadings — Introduction of Alternative Cause of Action — Same Facts
An amendment that introduces an alternative or additional cause of action based on the same factual foundation as the original claim does not amount to the substitution of a wholly new and distinct cause of action, and should be allowed where the opposing party can be compensated by costs and afforded an opportunity to respond.
Civil Procedure — Amendment of Pleadings — Delay — Exercise of Discretion
While amendments may be allowed at any stage of proceedings, the court's discretion must be exercised judiciously and not in a manner that rewards indolence. Where an applicant brings an amendment application after inordinate and unexplained delay, the court may allow the amendment in the interests of substantive justice but penalise the applicant in costs.

Legislation cited (7)

Cases cited (2)

  • Eastern Bakery v Castelino [1958] EA 462
  • Muloowoza & Bros v N. Shah & Co Ltd (Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 26 of 2010)

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Multi Consult Designs Ltd v SGS Uganda Ltd (Miscellaneous Application No. 82 of 2025) [2025] UGCommC 260 (5 May 2025)
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.