Wakilii

Mutasingwa and Another v Kamanzi (Miscellaneous Application 993 of 2023)

High Court · [2023] UGHCLD 498 · 2023 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 for breach of contract
Decision
Leave granted to amend plaint with directions for filing amended pleadings and trial bundles

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. The proposed amendments related to clarifying facts on specific performance, adding claims regarding an access road, and seeking removal of a caveat placed on the suit land. The court held that the amendments were incidental to the main cause of action for breach of contract, did not introduce a new cause of action, and were necessary to determine the real questions in controversy between the parties while avoiding multiplicity of suits.

Outcome

Leave granted to amend plaint with directions for filing amended pleadings and trial bundles

Facts

The applicants filed Civil Suit No. 653 of 2017 against the respondent claiming breach of contract, specific performance, general damages and costs. The parties had entered into a sale agreement whereby the respondent agreed to sell 60 acres of land comprised in Nyabushozi Block Ankole Ranching scheme LRV MBR 106 folio 9 plot 23 B7 at Kijabijo Kiruhura for UGX 330,000,000. The applicants alleged that after survey, the respondent only delivered 41 acres instead of 60 acres, and the respondent deposited UGX 104,500,000 as a refund for the 19 missing acres. After the suit was filed, the respondent placed a caveat on the suit land on 24th September 2018. The applicants sought to amend the plaint to clarify facts relating to specific performance, add claims regarding an allegedly destroyed access road, and seek removal of the caveat.

Issues

  1. Whether leave should be granted to the applicants to amend their plaint in H.C.C.S No. 653 of 2017.

Orders

  • Application allowed.
  • The applicants to file an amended plaint in H.C.C.S No. 653 of 2017 before 31st August 2023.
  • The respondent to file amended written statement of defence not later than 19th September 2023.
  • The parties to file amended joint scheduling memorandum not later than 10th October 2023.
  • The parties to file amended trial bundles by 19th October 2023.
  • Costs of this application to be in the cause.

Rules and key headnotes

Civil Procedure — Amendment of Pleadings — Principles Governing Grant of Leave
Under Order 6 rule 19 of the Civil Procedure Rules, the court may at any stage of proceedings allow a party to amend pleadings as may be necessary for determining the real questions in controversy between the parties, and leave to amend will be granted unless the party is acting malafide, the amendment would work injustice that cannot be compensated by costs, or the amendment is prohibited by law.
Civil Procedure — Amendment of Pleadings — Amendments That Do Not Introduce New Cause of Action
An amendment that clarifies facts, adds incidental and affiliated issues to the subsisting cause of action, or seeks additional remedies arising from the same transaction does not introduce a distinct new cause of action and should be allowed to avoid multiplicity of suits.
Civil Procedure — Amendment of Pleadings — Test for Allowing Amendment
The test for allowing an amendment is whether the proposed amendment introduces a distinct new cause of action instead of the original, or whether and in what way it would prejudice the rights of the respondent if allowed; where the amendment will occasion no injury except such as can be compensated by costs, leave should be granted.

Legislation cited (4)

Cases cited (2)

  • Gaso Transport Services (BUS) Limited v Obone [1990-1994] EA
  • Mulowoza v Shah 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.

Mutasingwa_and_Another_v_Kamanzi_(Miscellaneous_Application_993_of_2023)_[2023]_UGHCLD_498_(18_August_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.