Nabugabo Updeal JV v Bin IT Service Limited (Miscellaneous Application 297 of 2018)

Observed later treatment

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.

Holding

Held that an application to amend a written statement of defence cannot be used to introduce a counterclaim that was not part of the original pleadings. A counterclaim is a separate suit requiring leave of court to file out of time. However, amendments to add omitted facts necessary for adjudication should be allowed to avoid multiplicity of suits. Application allowed in part: factual amendments granted, proposed counterclaim denied.

Outcome

Application partly allowed — factual amendments to defence permitted; counterclaim introduction denied

Facts

The applicant filed a written statement of defence in Civil Suit No. 198 of 2016. The applicant's project manager deposed that crucial facts were omitted from the defence at the time of drafting and that former counsel had been instructed to include a counterclaim for losses caused by the respondent but failed to do so. The applicant sought leave to amend the defence to include these facts and introduce the counterclaim. The respondent opposed, arguing that the proposed amendment introduced a new cause of action through a counterclaim filed out of time without proper leave, and that the application was intended to delay justice. Trial of the main suit had not commenced at the time of the application.

Issues

1. Whether the application to amend the applicant's written statement of defence in Civil Suit No. 198 of 2016 should be granted?

Orders

• Application succeeds in part.
• Proposed amendments to the written statement of defence are allowed.
• Proposed counterclaim is denied.
• Costs of this application shall be in the cause.

Rules and key headnotes

Legislation cited (5)

• Civil Procedure Rules Order 6 rule 19
• Civil Procedure Rules Order 6 rule 31
• Civil Procedure Rules Order 6 rule 9
• Civil Procedure Rules Order 8 rule 2
• Civil Procedure Rules Order 8 rule 7

Cases cited (5)

• Gaso Transport Services (Bus) Ltd v Obene (Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 4 of 1994)
• Tororo Cement Company Limited v Frokina International Limited (Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 2 of 2001)
• Omumbejja Namusisi & 3 Others v Makerere University (Miscellaneous Application No. 1199 of 2013)
• Nambi v Bunyoro General Merchants [1974] HCB 12
• Daniel Kayizi v Prince Muhammed Kayondo (Miscellaneous Application No. 387 of 2016)

Cases citing this judgment (1)

How later Ugandan judgments in the Wakilii corpus have cited this case. Treatment labels come from Sequitur — Uganda’s citator — each backed by a verbatim span from the citing judgment, and are not an assertion that this case is, or is not, good law.

• Kayinga Gerald v Muwanga Livingstone and Others (Civil Suit No. 59 of 2025) followed

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