Wakilii

National Animal Genetic Resources Centre and Data Bank v The Registered Trustees of Church of Uganda (Miscellaneous Application 156 of 2023)

High Court · [2024] UGHCLD 156 AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Application for leave to amend written statement of defence and counterclaim in pending land suit
Decision
—

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 judgment text ends abruptly mid-sentence while discussing the definition of trespass and does not contain the court's final ruling on the application. The court set out the legal test for amendments from Gaso Transport Services v Obene and examined whether the proposed amendments would introduce a new cause of action or merely clarify and expand the existing counterclaim for trespass and illegality of the respondent's title registration.

Facts

The Respondent instituted Civil Suit No. 111 of 2022 against the Applicant for trespass on land comprised in Freehold Register Volume MBR324 Folio 8 at Kayonza in Kiruhura District. The Applicant filed a written statement of defence and counterclaim denying the allegations and seeking cancellation of the Respondent's freehold certificate on grounds it was illegally obtained over the Applicant's pre-existing leasehold interest. While preparing for hearing, the Applicant discovered that it had inadvertently omitted material facts and documents from its pleadings. The Applicant sought leave to amend its defence and counterclaim to add causes of action for recovery of land, fraud, and illegality, and to clarify that the leasehold interest in the suit land was held by the Uganda Land Commission (not directly by the Applicant) pursuant to a 99-year lease agreement executed on 20 November 1963 over 12,183 acres at Kanyoza. The Respondent opposed the application, arguing that it introduced an entirely new cause of action and was time-barred.

Issues

  1. Whether the proposed amendment will work injustice to the Respondent.
  2. Whether the proposed amendment will avoid a multiplicity of proceedings.
  3. Whether the application introduces a new cause of action and is malafide.
  4. Whether the proposed amendment is barred expressly or impliedly by law.

Rules and key headnotes

Civil Procedure — Amendment of Pleadings — Discretion of Court
The court has discretion at any stage of proceedings to allow a party to alter or amend pleadings in such manner and on such terms as may be just, and all such amendments shall be made as may be necessary for the purpose of determining the real questions in controversy between the parties.
Civil Procedure — Amendment of Pleadings — Guiding Principles
When considering an application to amend pleadings, the court must consider whether: (1) the amendments would work injustice to the other side (noting that an injury which can be compensated by costs is not treated as injustice); (2) the amendments avoid multiplicity of proceedings (and such amendments should be freely allowed); (3) the application is made malafide; and (4) the amendments are expressly or impliedly prohibited by law.
Civil Procedure — Amendment of Pleadings — New Cause of Action
The test to be applied when it is alleged that an amendment introduces an entirely new cause of action 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 opposite party.

Legislation cited (4)

Cases cited (7)

  • Gaso Transport Services (Bus) Ltd v Obene (Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 4 of 1994)
  • Mulowooza & Brothers v N. Shah & Co. Ltd (Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 26 of 2010)
  • Crane Bank Limited v Sudhir Ruparelia & Another (Supreme Court Civil Application No. 02 of 2021)
  • Mohan Musisi Kiwanuka v Asha Chand (Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 14 of 2002)
  • BONABANA VS BYAMUGISHA BABY COACH & SONS TRANSPORT CO. LTD AND OTHERS MISC APPLICATION NO.100 OF 2022
  • Dima Dominic Poro v Inyani Godfrey & Another (Civil Appeal No. 0017 of 2016)
  • Justine E. M. N. Lutaaya v Stirling Civil Engineering Company Ltd (Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 11 of 2002)

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

National Animal Genetic Resources Centre and Data Bank v The Registered Trustees of Church of Uganda (Miscellaneous Application 156 of 2023) [2024] UG
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.