Wakilii

Omamteker v Barigye and Another (Miscellaneous Application 1117 of 2024)

High Court · [2025] UGHCCD 53 · 2025 Application Dismissed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Application for leave to amend plaint in underlying civil suit
Decision
Application for leave to amend dismissed with costs

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 for leave to amend a plaint in a conversion suit. The court held that the applicant lacked ownership of the converted property, a critical element of the tort of conversion. The underlying suit was therefore void ab initio for want of a cause of action. No amendment should be allowed where the suit is devoid of a valid cause of action.

Outcome

Application for leave to amend dismissed with costs

Facts

The applicant filed Civil Suit No. 0316 of 2022 alleging conversion of a Canter Truck valued at over UGX 80,000,000 by the respondents. The applicant later sought leave to amend the plaint to add Captain Darlington Omamteker as a party and include additional material facts. The respondents opposed the application, arguing it was malafide, sought to introduce a new cause of action, and would prejudice their defences. The underlying suit alleged that on 16 September 2022, the first respondent brought police and security agencies onto the applicant's land, who then stole or converted the truck without the applicant's consent. The applicant's husband reported the matter to police but no action was taken.

Issues

  1. Whether the applicant should be allowed leave to amend the plaint in the underlying civil suit.

Orders

  • Application dismissed.
  • Costs awarded to the respondents.

Rules and key headnotes

Tort Law — Conversion — Ownership as Essential Element
To sustain a suit in conversion, the plaintiff must be the owner of the property allegedly converted. Ownership is a critical element of the tort of conversion.
Civil Procedure — Amendment of Pleadings — Suit Void for Want of Cause of Action
No amendment should be allowed where the underlying suit is void ab initio for being devoid of a cause of action. A plaint that does not disclose a cause of action must be rejected, and this provision is mandatory.
Tort Law — Conversion — Elements of the Tort
The tort of conversion is committed by a dealing with the goods of a person which constitutes an unjustifiable denial of his rights in them or the assertion of rights inconsistent therewith. It may be committed by wrongfully taking possession of goods, disposing of them, destroying them, or refusing to give them up when demanded.

Legislation cited (6)

Cases cited (3)

  • Standard Chartered Bank (U) Ltd & Anor v Attorney General (Civil Appeal No. 3 of 2003)
  • Hosmani v National Bank of India Ltd (1937) 4 EACA 51
  • Auto Garage v Motokov (No. 3) [1971] EA 514

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Omamteker v Barigye and Another (Miscellaneous Application 1117 of 2024) [2025] UGHCCD 53 (5 May 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.