Wakilii

Obene v Akamba (U) Limited and Another (Civil Suit 740 of 91)

High Court · [1993] UGHC 39 · 1993 Application Dismissed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Application by 2nd Defendant for leave to amend Written Statement of Defence after close of evidence and before final submissions
Decision
Application dismissed

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 dismissed an application by the 2nd Defendant to amend its Written Statement of Defence after the close of evidence. The court held that the amendment was sought at too late a stage, without adequate explanation for the omissions, and the conduct of the defendant amounted to culpable failure rather than inadvertence. The defendant had failed to raise the fundamental issue that it did not exist at the date of the accident despite being granted an earlier opportunity to amend pleadings.

Outcome

Application dismissed

Facts

The plaintiff filed suit on 29 November 1991 against two defendants arising from a traffic accident. Pleadings were completed by 8 January 1992 and the matter proceeded through several hearing dates. After the close of defence evidence on 17 December 1992, the court on 19 January 1993 granted leave to all parties to file amended pleadings following an application by the 1st Defendant. The 1st Defendant filed amended pleadings but the 2nd Defendant did not. After further evidence was led, the 2nd Defendant on 7 April 1993 applied for leave to amend its Written Statement of Defence, claiming it had discovered on 15 January 1993 through a company registry search that it was incorporated on 22 January 1990, after the accident date of 10 October 1989. Throughout the trial, the 2nd Defendant had conducted its defence on the basis that it was the operator of the vehicle involved in the accident.

Issues

  1. Whether leave should be granted to the 2nd Defendant to amend its Written Statement of Defence at the stage after evidence had closed and before final submissions.

Orders

  • The application for leave to amend the Written Statement of Defence is dismissed with costs.

Rules and key headnotes

Civil Procedure — Amendment of Pleadings — Application Made After Close of Evidence
An application to amend pleadings may be granted even after commencement of a hearing as long as no final decision has been made, but such applications should be made at the earliest possible moment and the court will consider factors including the conduct of the applicant, whether the omission was due to inadvertence or was deliberate, and whether the amendment would cause injustice to the other party.
Civil Procedure — Amendment of Pleadings — Culpable Failure Distinguished from Inadvertence
Where a party seeking to amend pleadings fails to provide adequate explanation for fundamental omissions in the original pleadings, fails to take advantage of an earlier opportunity to amend, and conducts the case throughout on a basis inconsistent with the proposed amendment, such conduct constitutes culpable failure rather than inadvertence and does not merit the court's indulgence.
Civil Procedure — Amendment of Pleadings — Late Stage Amendment
The court will not allow an amendment at a late stage where the party seeking amendment has deliberately omitted to raise a fundamental issue in the original pleadings, failed to raise it in agreed issues, failed to amend when granted leave to do so, and attempts to introduce it only after closing its case.

Cases cited (7)

  • Waljee's (U) Ltd v Ramji Punjabhai Bugerere Tea Estates Ltd (Civil Suit No. 536 of 1958)
  • Steward v Northern Metropolitan Tramways Ltd (1886) 16 QBD 556
  • Jupiter General Insurance Co Ltd v Rajabali Hasham & Sons [1940] 7 EACA 595
  • Jani Properties v Dar-es-Salaam City Council [1966] EA 281
  • Cheleta Coffee v Mehlser [1966] EA 203
  • General Manager R.A.R.H. vs. THI CRSTEIN 1968 E.A 354
  • Abdul Karim Khan vs. Mohamed Roshan 1965 E.A.

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Obene v Akamba (U) Limited and Another (Civil Suit 740 of 91) [1993] UGHC 39 (29 April 1993)
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.