Wakilii

Naggayi Gertrude v Kintu Paul (Miscellaneous Application No. 2941 of 2024)

High Court · [2025] UGHCLD 269 · 2025 Application Granted AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Application for validation of appeal and leave to serve amended memorandum of appeal out of time, arising from Civil Appeal No. 38 of 2024 which arose from Civil Suit No. 94 of 2013 at Mengo Chief Magistrates Court
Decision
Application allowed; appeal validated with corrected party names; applicant granted leave to serve amended memorandum within 15 days

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

Held that where counsel filed a memorandum of appeal within time but erroneously named the successful party as appellant instead of the aggrieved party, the court may exercise its inherent powers under section 98 of the Civil Procedure Act to validate an amended memorandum correcting the error. A mistake by counsel in naming parties should not be visited upon the client. The amendment sought to rectify parties without introducing new grounds of appeal and caused no injustice to the respondent. Application allowed.

Outcome

Application allowed; appeal validated with corrected party names; applicant granted leave to serve amended memorandum within 15 days

Facts

The respondent obtained judgment in his favour in Civil Suit No. 94 of 2013 at Mengo Chief Magistrates Court on 27 March 2024 concerning an access road dispute. The applicant instructed lawyers to appeal. A memorandum of appeal was filed on 24 April 2024 within the prescribed time, but counsel erroneously named Kintu Paul (the successful party) as appellant and Naggayi Gertrude as respondent. Upon discovering the error, counsel filed an amended memorandum on 23 May 2024, by which time the appeal period had expired. The applicant sought validation of the appeal and leave to serve the amended memorandum out of time.

Issues

  1. Whether the Applicant's Memorandum of Appeal should be validated.
  2. Whether the Applicant should be granted leave to serve the amended memorandum of appeal out of time.

Orders

  • Civil Appeal No. 38 of 2024 arising from Mengo Civil Suit No. 94 of 2013 is hereby validated to reflect Naggayi Getrude as the Appellant and Kintu Paul as the Respondent.
  • The Amended Memorandum of Appeal that was filed on 23rd May 2023 is also hereby validated.
  • The applicant is granted leave to serve the amended memorandum on the respondent within 15 days from date of this ruling.
  • The applicant shall meet her costs for this application.

Rules and key headnotes

Civil Procedure — Amendment of Pleadings — Memorandum of Appeal — Correction of Party Names
A memorandum of appeal is a pleading and the principles governing amendment of pleadings apply equally to it. Where a memorandum of appeal is filed within time but contains an error in naming the parties, the court may allow amendment to reflect the true parties under Order 6 rule 19 of the Civil Procedure Rules.
Civil Procedure — Amendment of Pleadings — Principles — Timing and Prejudice
Amendments to pleadings sought before the hearing should be freely allowed if they can be made without injustice to the other side and do not introduce a new cause of action. Where an amendment merely rectifies party names without introducing new grounds and causes no prejudice, it should be granted.
Civil Procedure — Mistakes of Counsel — Effect on Client
A mistake, lapse or dilatory conduct by counsel should not be visited upon the litigant. Where counsel erroneously names parties in a memorandum of appeal, an error over which the client had no control, the client should not be prejudiced by counsel's mistake.
Civil Procedure — Inherent Powers of Court — Section 98 Civil Procedure Act
Under section 98 of the Civil Procedure Act, the court has inherent powers to make such orders as may be necessary for the ends of justice. These powers may be invoked to validate an appeal and grant leave to rectify procedural anomalies where justice so demands.

Legislation cited (10)

Cases cited (4)

  • J. Mark Sekubule v Sebastiano Sebagala & Anor (Miscellaneous Application No. 64 of 2021)
  • Andrew Bamanya v Shamsherali Zaver (Court of Appeal Civil Application No. 70 of 2001)
  • Mujungu Jeniffer v Tumwine Anne Mary & Electoral Commission (Court of Appeal Election Petition Appeal No. 77 of 2021)
  • Eastern Bakery Ltd v. Castelino, 1958 E.A 461

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Naggayi_Gertrude_v_Kintu_Paul_(Miscellaneous_Application_No._2941_of_2024)_[2025]_UGHCLD_269_(3_September_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.