Wakilii

Nayebale Mideas v Tropical Bank and Another (Miscellaneous Application No.25 of 2024)

High Court · [2026] UGHC 107 · 2026 Application Granted AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Application to strike out amended written statement of defence and counter-claim filed in contravention of leave granted
Decision
Counter-claim struck out; amended written statement of defence remains on record

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 when a court grants leave to amend pleadings based on proposed amendments, the party may not file materially different amendments introducing new parties or new causes of action without seeking fresh leave. The counter-claim filed by the first respondent introduced a new counter-defendant and a new cause of action not contemplated in the proposed amendment upon which leave was granted. This constituted an abuse of court process. The counter-claim was struck out under the court's inherent jurisdiction.

Outcome

Counter-claim struck out; amended written statement of defence remains on record

Facts

The applicant filed suit against Tropical Bank and Bamwesigye Benon. In Miscellaneous Application No. 51 of 2023, Tropical Bank sought and obtained leave to amend its written statement of defence to correct the outstanding loan amount from UGX 15,000,000 to UGX 24,000,000 and to introduce a counter-claim against the second respondent only for recovery of the loan. The proposed amended pleadings were annexed to that application. However, the amended written statement of defence and counter-claim filed on 09/02/2024 materially differed from the proposed pleadings. The filed counter-claim targeted the applicant instead of the second respondent and changed the cause of action from recovery of a loan to a claim for general damages for interference with mortgaged property. The applicant applied to strike out the amended pleadings on the ground that they exceeded the scope of the leave granted.

Issues

  1. Whether the amended pleadings fall within the leave granted by the Court in Miscellaneous Application No. 51 of 2023.
  2. Whether the amended pleadings should be struck out.
  3. What remedies are available to the parties.

Orders

  • The counter-claim filed by the 1st respondent within the Amended Written Statement of Defence and Counter-claim dated 09/02/2024 is struck out for being filed in contravention of the leave granted in Miscellaneous Application No. 51 of 2023 and for constituting an abuse of court process.
  • The amended written statement of defence is proper before Court.
  • The costs of this application will be in the cause.

Rules and key headnotes

Civil Procedure — Amendment of Pleadings — Scope of Leave Granted
When a court grants leave to amend pleadings based on proposed amendments attached to the application, the leave is limited to the specific changes presented. A party may not file an amended pleading that introduces new parties, new causes of action, or materially different amendments without seeking fresh leave from the court.
Civil Procedure — Amendment of Pleadings — Purpose of Proposed Pleadings
The practice of attaching proposed amended pleadings to an application for leave to amend serves two critical functions: it enables the court to assess the nature, scope and propriety of the intended amendment, and it provides the opposing party with clarity and prevents unfair surprise. The proposed pleading defines the outer limits of the amendment for which leave is granted.
Civil Procedure — Striking Out Pleadings — Inherent Jurisdiction
Under Section 98 of the Civil Procedure Act and Section 14(2) of the Judicature Act, the High Court has inherent jurisdiction to strike out a pleading filed in contravention of leave granted and in abuse of court process, even where the pleading discloses a cause of action and does not fall within Order 6 Rule 30(1) of the Civil Procedure Rules.
Civil Procedure — Amendment of Pleadings — Introduction of New Party or Cause of Action
An amendment introducing a new cause of action or new party without leave is not permissible, because it fundamentally alters the character of the suit. Where leave to amend is granted on the basis of a proposed pleading, filing an amended pleading that includes new, unrelated, or different changes is an abuse of court process.

Legislation cited (6)

Cases cited (7)

  • Scovia Mutereza v Margret Kakacumbira and Another (High Court Civil Suit No. HCT-05-LD-CS-0274 of 2022)
  • Makula International Ltd v His Eminence Cardinal Emmanuel Nsubuga [1982] HCB 11
  • Gaso Transport Services (Bus) Ltd v Obene [1990-94] EA 88
  • Huawei Technologies (U) Co. Ltd v Evepeak Consults & Technical Services Ltd (Miscellaneous Application No. 189 of 2011)
  • Amit Jain v Hon. Lokii Peter Abrahams (High Court Miscellaneous Application No. 0695 of 2014)
  • Steward v North Metropolitan Tramways Co (1886) 16 QBD 178
  • G. L. Baker Ltd v Medway Building & Supplies Ltd [1958] 1 WLR 1216

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Nayebale Mideas v Tropical Bank and Another (Miscellaneous Application No.25 of 2024) [2026] UGHC 107 (10 February 2026)
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.