Wakilii

Nampala v Kimuli and Others (Miscellaneous Application 92 of 2022)

High Court · [2023] UGHCCD 266 · 2023 Application Dismissed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Interlocutory application seeking leave to amend plaint and add parties in underlying Civil Suit No. 90 of 2019
Decision
Application for leave to amend plaint and add parties dismissed

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 High Court dismissed the applicants' application for leave to amend their plaint and add parties in a land dispute. The court found that the matters the applicants sought to introduce through amendment had already been resolved by three consent judgments in related Civil Suit No. 94 of 2017. The court held it would be futile to allow amendment to include issues already concluded by consent judgments, which have the force of law until reviewed or set aside. Preliminary objections regarding service of the chamber summons, defective affidavits, and abuse of process were overruled.

Outcome

Application for leave to amend plaint and add parties dismissed

Facts

The applicants filed Civil Suit No. 90 of 2019 concerning land comprised in Block 98 Plot 432. They subsequently sought leave to amend the plaint and add the 7th and 8th respondents (Kaddu Christopher and the Commissioner Land Registration) as defendants. The respondents opposed the application, raising six preliminary objections and arguing that the application was an abuse of court process given the litigation history. The parties had been involved in related Civil Suit No. 94 of 2017, which had been substantially concluded through three consent judgments entered between 2017 and 2019. The third consent judgment, dated 26 April 2019, involved an agreement between the plaintiffs in that suit and Kaddu Christopher (proposed 7th respondent) regarding the same land. The applicants had previously filed and withdrawn Civil Suit No. 210 of 2020 and various related applications. They also filed Miscellaneous Application No. 369 of 2022 seeking to set aside the third consent judgment and consolidate Civil Suit No. 94 of 2017 with Civil Suit No. 90 of 2019, which remained pending at the time of this ruling.

Issues

  1. Whether the Chamber Summons was served out of time after the summons had expired.
  2. Whether the Affidavit in Support of the Chamber Summons is defective for having been sworn without authority from the other Applicants.
  3. Whether the proposed amended plaint discloses no reasonable cause of action which makes the Application incompetent.
  4. Whether the annexures to the supporting Affidavits ought to be rejected for not having been sealed by the Commissioner for Oaths.
  5. Whether the Affidavit in Support of the Application is incurably defective for containing falsehoods.
  6. Whether the Application is an abuse of court process.
  7. Whether leave to amend the Plaint and to add parties should be granted to the Applicants.

Orders

  • Application for amendment dismissed.
  • Each party to bear their own costs.

Rules and key headnotes

Civil Procedure — Amendment of Pleadings — Discretion of Court — Futility
A court may refuse leave to amend pleadings where the proposed amendment would be futile, particularly where the matters sought to be introduced have already been conclusively determined by consent judgments in related proceedings.
Civil Procedure — Consent Judgments — Effect and Finality
A consent judgment is a judgment of the court and has the force of law until it is reviewed or set aside; parties are bound by its terms and cannot circumvent it through amendments in parallel proceedings.
Civil Procedure — Service of Process — Time Limits
Where a chamber summons is filed and endorsed by the Deputy Registrar but awaits fixing by the trial judge as a matter of court policy, time for service begins to run from the date the trial judge fixes the matter for hearing, not from the date of filing.
Civil Procedure — Affidavits — Failure to Seal Annexures
The failure to seal annexures to an affidavit as required by Rule 8 of the Commissioner for Oaths Rules does not render the affidavit fatally defective in interlocutory applications, as the rule is procedural and does not go to the competence of the affidavit; substantive justice should be administered without undue regard to technicalities.

Legislation cited (8)

Cases cited (11)

  • Auto Garage v Motokov (1971) EA 519
  • Kampala Bottlers v Damanico (U) Ltd (Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 22 of 1992)
  • Namboowa Rashida versus Bavekuno Mafuma Godfrey Kyeswa versus Electoral Commission EPA 69/2016
  • Uganda Corporation Creameries Ltd and Another versus Reamton Ltd CACA 1998
  • Bigways Construction Ltd v Trentyre (U) Ltd (HCMA No. 832 of 2005)
  • Joseph Mulenga v Photo Focus (U) Ltd (HCMA No. 308 of 1996)
  • Attorney General v James Kamoga & Another (Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 8 of 2004)
  • Muchanga Investments Limited v Safaris Unlimited (Africa) Ltd & 2 Others (Civil Appeal No. 25 of 2002)
  • Gaso Transport Services (Bus) Ltd v Obene (1990-1994) EA 88
  • Mulowooza & Brothers Ltd v Shah & Co. Ltd (Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 26 of 2010)
  • Nicholas Serunkuma Ssewagudde & 2 Others v Namasole Namusoke Namatovu Veronica (HCMA No. 1307 of 2016)

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Nampala v Kimuli and Others (Miscellaneous Application 92 of 2022) [2023] UGHCCD 266 (14 April 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.