Wakilii

National Drug Authority v Samuel Kasozi and Ors (Miscellaneous Application No. 129 of 2021)

High Court · [2022] UGCOMMC 22 · 2022 Application Granted AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Application for leave to amend plaint in ongoing civil suit
Decision
Application granted with costs to respondents; applicant directed to file amended plaint within seven 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

The High Court granted the National Drug Authority leave to amend its plaint to include an additional claim for USD 232,011 discovered through a special audit, despite the application being brought 12 years after the suit was filed. The court applied the principle that amendments should be allowed if they can be made without injustice to the other side, but awarded costs of the application to the respondents due to the applicant's delay.

Outcome

Application granted with costs to respondents; applicant directed to file amended plaint within seven days

Facts

The National Drug Authority instituted a civil suit in 2009 against three former employees (Senior Accountant, Assistant Accountant, and Accounts Assistant Revenue) claiming compensation for losses allegedly caused by their negligence. In 2021, twelve years after filing the suit, the Authority applied to amend its plaint to include an additional claim for USD 232,011 which had been discovered through a special audit report. The special audit, conducted by M/S Biz & Co. Certified Public Accountants as directed by the Auditor General, confirmed that this additional amount had been fraudulently taken by the respondents between 1st July 2004 and 26th February 2007. The respondents had been dismissed from employment on 22nd October 2007 following the special audit. The respondents did not file any opposition to the amendment application.

Issues

  1. Whether the Applicant should be granted leave to amend the Plaint in these circumstances.

Orders

  • The Applicant/Plaintiff is granted leave to amend its Plaint in Civil Suit No. 148 of 2009.
  • The Applicant/Plaintiff is directed to file and serve the Amended Plaint within seven (7) days from the date of this Ruling.
  • Once served the Respondents/Defendants may file their Amended Written Statements of Defence to the Amended Plaint within fourteen (14) days of being served.
  • The costs of this application are granted to the Respondents notwithstanding the outcome of the main suit.

Rules and key headnotes

Civil Procedure — Amendment of Pleadings — Principles Governing Exercise of Discretion
An application for amendment of pleadings should generally be allowed however negligent or careless the omission may have been and however late the proposed amendment, if the amendment can be made without injustice to the other side and the inconvenience occasioned can be compensated for by costs.
Civil Procedure — Amendment of Pleadings — Timing and Delay
Amendment ought to be pursued at the earliest available opportunity, and a party should not leave their application to a stage so late in the proceedings that to allow an amendment then would be unjust to the opponent, though delay alone does not bar amendment if no injustice results.
Civil Procedure — Amendment of Pleadings — Costs Consequences of Delay
Where an applicant brings an amendment application many years after the suit was filed and the information supporting the amendment was available before the suit was instituted, the court may grant the amendment but deny costs to the applicant or award costs to the respondent regardless of the outcome of the main suit.

Legislation cited (4)

Cases cited (10)

  • Biiso v Tibamwenda (HCB 92 of 1991)
  • Eastern Bakery v Castelino [1958] EA 461
  • Nsereko v Taibu Lubega (HCB 51 of 1982)
  • Wamanyi v Interfreight Forwarders (U) Limited [1990] II KALR
  • Gaso Transport Services Limited v Martin Adala Obene (Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 4 of 1994)
  • Moss v Matings (1886) 33 CHD 603
  • Nambi v Bunyoro General Merchants (HCB 124 of 1974)
  • GP Jani Properties v Dar-es-Salaam City Council [1966] EA 281
  • British India General Insurance Company Limited v GM Pharma and Company [1966] EA 172
  • David Acar v Acar Aciro (HCB 60 of 1982)

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

National Drug Authority v Samuel Kasozi and Ors (Miscellaneous Application No. 129 of 2021) [2022] UGCommC 22 (12 April 2022)
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.