Wakilii

Musisi v EDCO Ltd (M.A No. 386 of 2013)

High Court · [2013] UGHCLD 57 · 2013 Application Partly Allowed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Application for leave to amend memorandum of appeal arising from Civil Appeal No. 52 of 2010
Decision
Application allowed with costs in the cause under Order 43 rule 2, permitting argument of grounds not originally included in memorandum of appeal

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 allowed the application with costs in the cause, permitting the applicant to argue new grounds under Order 43 rule 2 of the Civil Procedure Rules, although the memorandum of appeal itself could not be amended due to late filing. The court held that matters of law can be raised at any stage and that amendments should promote substantial justice.

Outcome

Application allowed with costs in the cause under Order 43 rule 2, permitting argument of grounds not originally included in memorandum of appeal

Facts

The applicant filed Civil Suit No. 384 of 2008 in the Chief Magistrate's Court of Entebbe against the respondents. On 2 December 2009, judgment was delivered. The applicant filed a memorandum of appeal on 14 September 2010 in Civil Appeal No. 52 of 2010, ten months after the lower court judgment. The applicant then sought leave to amend the memorandum of appeal to add three new grounds: whether a foreign company could hold mailo land, whether the trial magistrate had jurisdiction, and whether the suit was time-barred under the Limitation Act. These grounds were never argued in the original trial but were characterized as matters of law.

Issues

  1. Whether the court should grant leave to amend the memorandum of appeal to add three new grounds relating to the nature of the respondent company, jurisdiction, and limitation.
  2. Whether grounds of appeal not included in the memorandum of appeal but arising from matters of law can be argued under Order 43 rule 2.

Orders

  • Application allowed in the terms of Order 43 rule 2 of the Civil Procedure Rules S.I. 71-1.
  • Costs in the cause.

Rules and key headnotes

Civil Procedure — Appeals — Amendment of Memorandum of Appeal — Discretion of Court
The court's discretion to allow amendment of a memorandum of appeal is a judicial discretion exercised to achieve substantial justice and not to punish parties on technical grounds, and an amendment should be allowed if it does not work injustice to the other side and is not made malafide.
Civil Procedure — Appeals — Matters of Law — Raising at Any Stage
A matter of law can be brought up at any stage of proceedings, and where a question of illegality is brought to the attention of the court, it overrides all other considerations and the court is duty-bound to investigate such claims.
Civil Procedure — Appeals — Jurisdiction — Party Determining Jurisdiction Cannot Challenge It
Where the appellant filed the original suit and determined the court's jurisdiction, the appellant cannot raise the ground of jurisdiction at the appellate stage when that issue was never argued in the lower court.
Civil Procedure — Appeals — Order 43 Rule 2 — Arguing Grounds Not Included in Memorandum
Under Order 43 rule 2 of the Civil Procedure Rules, a party can argue grounds which were not included in the memorandum of appeal, even where the memorandum itself cannot be amended due to late filing.

Legislation cited (6)

Cases cited (3)

  • Cropper v Smith (1883) 26 Ch D 700
  • Gaso Transport Services (Bus) Ltd v Martin Adala Obene (SCCA No. 4 of 1994)
  • Tanganyika Farmers v Unyamwezi [1960] EA 620

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Musisi v EDCO Ltd (M.A No. 386 of 2013) [2013] UGHCLD 57 (7 June 2013)
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.