Wakilii

Ndabahwereze v MTN (U) Limited and 2 Others (Miscellaneous Application 94 of 2023)

High Court · [2024] UGHC 103 · 2024 Application Dismissed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Interlocutory application for leave to amend plaint arising from civil suit for trespass
Decision
Application for leave to amend plaint dismissed

Observed later treatment

Cited — treatment unverified cited in 1 (treatment unverified) Sequitur — Uganda’s citator · Derived from citing cases in the Wakilii corpus — not an assertion that this case is good law.

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.

No adverse treatment recorded Cited 1 time with no adverse treatment recorded; not yet tested on the merits. Derived from citing cases in the Wakilii corpus — a deterministic signal, not legal advice.

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 an application to amend pleadings brought at an advanced stage of trial after scheduling and witness statements were filed constitutes inordinate delay. While amendments before trial are freely allowed to avoid multiplicity of suits, leave will not be granted where the applicant had possession of relevant evidence since 2020 but waited until the case was scheduled for hearing to file the amendment application. Amendment refused as bringing it at this late stage would prejudice the respondents' right to a speedy trial guaranteed by the Constitution.

Outcome

Application for leave to amend plaint dismissed

Facts

The applicant filed suit in May 2020 alleging trespass to land. Defendants filed defences in July 2020, with the 3rd defendant attaching a purchase agreement. The applicant filed an amended plaint in July 2020 with no mention of fraud. The parties generated a joint scheduling memorandum, filed witness statements, and the case was scheduled for hearing on 25 August 2023. On 20 October 2023, after scheduling, the applicant filed this application seeking leave to further amend the plaint to introduce allegations of fraud, claiming new counsel discovered the transactions between respondents were tainted with fraud. Respondents opposed, arguing the amendment sought to introduce a new cause of action at a late stage and would cause prejudice.

Issues

  1. Whether the applicant should be granted leave to amend the plaint and plead particulars and elements of fraud.
  2. What remedies are available.

Orders

  • Application dismissed with costs awarded to the Respondents in the cause.

Rules and key headnotes

Civil Procedure — Amendment of Pleadings — Timing — Inordinate Delay
While courts should freely allow amendments before trial to determine real questions in controversy, leave to amend will be refused where the application is brought with inordinate delay at advanced stages after scheduling and witness statements have been filed, particularly where the applicant had possession of relevant evidence since the commencement of the suit but waited until the case was scheduled for hearing.
Civil Procedure — Amendment of Pleadings — Adding Causes of Action — Fraud Allegations
An amendment that seeks to add a new cause of action (fraud) to an existing one (trespass) does not constitute substituting one distinct cause of action for another and is not barred by law where it seeks to have all questions in controversy between parties heard and settled in one suit to avert multiplicity of suits.
Civil Procedure — Right to Fair and Speedy Trial — Effect of Late Amendments
Where a prayer for leave to amend is made when a party has for a long time been in possession of evidence that they did not bring forth into their pleadings until the case is in its advanced stages, courts should be reluctant to grant such permission as it would prejudice the right to a speedy and fair trial guaranteed under Article 126(2)(e) of the Constitution.

Legislation cited (7)

Cases cited (5)

  • Muwolooza & Brothers v N Shah & Co Ltd (Civil Appeal No. 26 of 2010)
  • Eastern Bakery v Castelino (Court of Appeal for Eastern Africa No. 30 of 1958)
  • Mohan Musisi Kiwanuka v Asha Chand (Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 14 of 2002)
  • Bright Chicks Uganda Limited v Dan Bahingire (High Court Miscellaneous Application No. 254 of 2011)
  • Gaso Transport Services (Bus) Limited v Martin Adala Obene (Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 4 of 1994)

Cases citing this judgment (1)

How later Ugandan judgments in the Wakilii corpus have cited this case. Treatment labels come from Sequitur — Uganda’s citator — each backed by a verbatim span from the citing judgment, and are not an assertion that this case is, or is not, good law.

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Ndabahwereze v MTN (U) Limited and 2 Others (Miscellaneous Application 94 of 2023) [2024] UGHC 103 (22 March 2024)
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.