Wakilii

Nakamatte v Ssenyange and 4 Others (Miscellaneous Application 962 of 2022)

High Court · [2023] UGHCLD 206 · 2023 Application Dismissed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Application for leave to amend plaint arising from civil suit, seeking to remove deceased party, add administrator, and restore omitted party
Decision
Application for leave to amend plaint dismissed with costs to respondents

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

Application for leave to amend plaint dismissed. Court held that an advocate in personal conduct of a case may swear an affidavit without separate authority from the client. However, the application failed because the supporting affidavit contained falsehoods about when the applicant learned of a party's death, the suit against the deceased was a nullity that could not be rectified by amendment, and repeated amendments (four plaints filed) constituted abuse of court process.

Outcome

Application for leave to amend plaint dismissed with costs to respondents

Facts

The applicant filed a civil suit in 2017 and subsequently amended the plaint multiple times, adding and removing parties. In 2018, counsel informed court that the third defendant Yuda Kitaka was deceased and obtained leave to remove him. However, in February 2020, two amended plaints were filed on the same day with different parties, one of which re-added the deceased Yuda Kitaka and another party Mutebi Ronald. The applicant then sought leave to remove Yuda Kitaka again, add his administrator Rose Kitaka, and restore Ssemukuye who had been omitted. The applicant claimed she only learned of Yuda Kitaka's death in February 2022 when receiving documents from the Commissioner Land Registration. However, letters of administration to Yuda Kitaka's estate had been granted in July 2012, before the suit was filed, and counsel had informed court of his death in October 2018. By the time of this application, four different plaints had been filed with varying combinations of defendants.

Issues

  1. Whether the affidavit in reply sworn by advocate of the respondents should be struck off the court record
  2. Whether the applicant should be granted leave to amend the plaint as prayed

Orders

  • Application dismissed.
  • Costs awarded to the respondents.

Rules and key headnotes

Civil Procedure — Affidavits — Advocate's Authority to Swear Affidavit
An advocate in personal conduct of a case may swear an affidavit on matters within his or her knowledge without obtaining separate written authority from the client, as deponing to an affidavit is one of the acts authorised by law that can be done by the party, a recognised agent, or an advocate.
Civil Procedure — Amendment of Pleadings — Affidavit in Support Containing Falsehoods
An affidavit riddled with falsehoods cannot support an application before court, and where the supporting affidavit contains material false statements, the application must fail.
Civil Procedure — Amendment of Pleadings — Suit Against Deceased Person
Where a suit is filed against a deceased person, the suit is a nullity, and the court cannot allow amendment of the plaint to rectify the nullity by substituting the administrator of the deceased's estate.
Civil Procedure — Amendment of Pleadings — Abuse of Process
While the law allows parties to amend pleadings at any stage under Order 1 rule 10(2) of the Civil Procedure Rules, there must be a limit to the number of amendments allowed, as endless amendments occasion miscarriage of justice to other parties and constitute abuse of court process.

Legislation cited (6)

Cases cited (7)

  • Sophie Ndagire v Kibinge Ahmed (HCMA No. 1876 of 2017)
  • Electro-maro Uganda Ltd v Oryx Oil Uganda Ltd (HCMA No. 251 of 2020)
  • MM Sheik Dawood v VG Keshwala & Sons (HCCA No. 39 of 2014)
  • The Trustees of Rubaga Miracle Centre v Mulangira Ssimbwa (HCMA No. 576 of 2006)
  • Mulangira Ssimbwa v The Board of Trustees Miracle Centre and Pastor Robert Kayanja (HCMA No. 655 of 2005)
  • Mbarara Municipal Council v Jetha Brothers Ltd (Supreme Court Miscellaneous Application No. 10 of 2021)
  • Eric Tibebaga v Fr Narsensio Begumisa and Others (Civil Application No. 18 of 2002)

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Nakamatte_v_Ssenyange_and_4_Others_(Miscellaneous_Application_962_of_2022)_[2023]_UGHCLD_206_(13_July_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.