Okello Wilbert v Obel Ronald (Civil Miscellaneous Application No. 97 of 2020)
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 court granted leave to amend pleadings under Order 6 Rule 19 of the Civil Procedure Rules. The applicant demonstrated that material facts had been inadvertently omitted from the original plaint. The court held that the proposed amendment would not work an injustice to the respondent, was not brought in bad faith, and would enable determination of the real questions in controversy between the parties.
Outcome
Application allowed; applicant granted leave to amend pleadings in the main suit
Facts
The applicant filed Civil Suit No. 157 of 2017 seeking payment of special damages relating to property comprised in Block 237 Plot 92 Land at Mutungo, Luzira. While preparing for hearing, the applicant realized he had inadvertently omitted material facts from his pleadings, including that he had employed caretakers on the land since 2002, lodged a caveat in December 2016, changed the electricity meter to his name, and that the subsequent purchaser had reminded the respondent to pay the applicant his portion of the purchase price. The respondent opposed the amendment, arguing it was intended to deprive him of his defence that the suit was time-barred, a preliminary objection he had indicated in his written statement of defence.
Issues
- Whether the Applicant has shown grounds entitling him to be granted leave to amend his plaint in the main suit.
Orders
- The Applicant is granted leave to amend his pleadings in Civil Suit No. 157 of 2017.
- The Applicant shall file the amended plaint within 15 days from the date of delivery of this Ruling.
- The costs of this application shall abide the outcome of the main suit.
Rules and key headnotes
Legislation cited (3)
Cases cited (3)
- Gaso Transport Services (Bus) Ltd v Obene (1990-1994) EA 88
- Mulowooza & Brothers Ltd v Shah & Co. Ltd (Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 26 of 2010)
- Nicholas Serunkuma Ssewagudde & 2 Others v Namasole Namusoke Namatovu Veronica (High Court Miscellaneous Application No. 1307 of 2016)
Full judgment
The original judgment as reported. Read the original PDF before relying on any passage.