Wakilii

Nyakana Birungi v Birungi and Another (Miscellaneous Application 82 of 2024)

High Court · [2025] UGHC 96 · 2025 Application Granted AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Interlocutory application for leave to amend reply to written statement of defence and to introduce reply to counterclaim, with extension of time
Decision
Application allowed; applicant granted leave to amend pleadings and extension of time to file reply to counterclaim

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 applicant leave to amend her reply to the written statement of defence and introduce a defence of limitation to the respondents' counterclaim, and extended time for filing. The court held that amendments before trial should be freely allowed where no injustice results, and that denying the applicant the opportunity to raise a limitation defence would perpetuate illegality and deny her a fair hearing. The first respondent was held in default for failing to file an affidavit in reply.

Outcome

Application allowed; applicant granted leave to amend pleadings and extension of time to file reply to counterclaim

Facts

The applicant filed a civil suit (CS No. 69 of 2023) in Masindi. The respondents filed a written statement of defence with a counterclaim seeking to evict the applicant from the suit land. The applicant filed a reply to the written statement of defence but did not reply to the counterclaim, stating she had not yet gathered evidence. Subsequently, through search, she retrieved documents including rent receipts from 1995-2002 and electricity bills from 2009 from her multiple residences in Hoima and Kampala. She then applied for leave to amend her reply and introduce a defence that the counterclaim was time-barred. The 2nd respondent opposed, arguing the delay was inordinate and the evidence was always available. The 1st respondent did not file an affidavit in reply.

Issues

  1. Whether the Applicant should be granted leave to amend her reply to the written statement of defence of the Respondents.
  2. Whether time should be enlarged for the Applicant to file and serve her reply to the Respondents' counterclaim.

Orders

  • Application granted.
  • Applicant granted leave to amend the written statement of defence and introduce her reply to the 2nd and 3rd Defendants/Respondents' counterclaim.
  • Time extended for the Applicant to file and serve her reply to the 2nd and 3rd Defendants/Respondents' counterclaim within 14 days from the date of this ruling.
  • Each party to meet his own costs of the application.
  • The 1st Respondent held in default for failure to comply with Order 8 rule 1(2) of the Civil Procedure Rules.

Rules and key headnotes

Civil Procedure — Amendment of Pleadings — Leave to Amend — Discretion of Court
Under Order 6 rule 9 of the Civil Procedure Rules, the court may at any stage of proceedings allow either party to alter or amend pleadings in such manner and on such terms as may be just, and amendments sought before the hearing of the suit should be freely allowed if no injustice is occasioned to either party.
Civil Procedure — Affidavits — Requirement for Each Party to File Reply
Where multiple respondents are sued in their personal capacities in a chamber summons application, each respondent is required to file an affidavit in reply or expressly authorise another to swear on their behalf; the evidence of one person does not apply to affidavits, and failure by one respondent to file an affidavit in reply amounts to not opposing the application.
Civil Procedure — Limitation — Defence of Time Bar — Extension of Time
A defence of limitation is a legal defence that prevents a claim from being filed after a certain amount of time has passed and gives the defendant a complete defence to the claim; to deny a party the opportunity to raise a limitation defence would amount to denying a right to a fair hearing and perpetuating an illegality which defeats the ends of justice.
Civil Procedure — Counterclaim — Reply to Counterclaim — Extension of Time
Where an applicant seeks both leave to amend a reply to a written statement of defence and enlargement of time to file a reply to a counterclaim, the court may exercise its discretion under section 33 of the Judicature Act to grant the remedies so that all matters in controversy between the parties may be completely and finally determined and to avoid multiplicity of suits.

Legislation cited (10)

Cases cited (4)

  • Eastern Bakery v Castelino [1958] EA 461
  • Odyek Alex and Another v Gena Yokonani and 4 Others (HCCA No. 09 of 2017)
  • Edward Owor and Another v Ochwo Mello and Another (HCCA No. 173 of 2015)
  • DAPCB v Dr. J.M. Musambisi (CACA No. 04 of 2004)

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Nyakana Birungi v Birungi and Another (Miscellaneous Application 82 of 2024) [2025] UGHC 96 (17 January 2025)
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.