Wakilii

Onekgiu v Towkiny & 4 Others (Miscellaneous Application No. 43 of 2020)

High Court · [2020] UGHC 152 · 2020 Application Dismissed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Application for leave to amend pleadings in a prior application to reinstate a dismissed application
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 court refused leave to amend pleadings in an application that had already been dismissed. The applicant failed to disclose the substance of the proposed amendments, preventing the court from assessing whether they would advance determination of the real questions in controversy. No amendment may be made to a dismissed application.

Outcome

Application dismissed

Facts

The applicant had filed Civil Appeal No. 19 of 2019 before the High Court, which was dismissed on 24 October 2018 after the applicant failed to appear for the third time. The applicant then filed Miscellaneous Application No. 158 of 2019 to reinstate the appeal. When that application came up for hearing on 25 February 2020, neither the applicant nor his advocate appeared, and it was dismissed. The applicant then filed Miscellaneous Application No. 42 of 2020 to reinstate that dismissed application, and shortly thereafter filed the present application (Miscellaneous Application No. 43 of 2020) seeking leave to amend the pleadings in the already-dismissed Application No. 158 of 2019. The applicant claimed he had been self-represented when filing the earlier application and had omitted material facts.

Issues

  1. Whether the court should grant leave to the applicant to amend pleadings filed in an underlying application that has already been dismissed.

Orders

  • Application dismissed with costs to the respondents.

Rules and key headnotes

Civil Procedure — Amendment of Pleadings — Discretion of Court under Order 6 CPR
Order 6 rules 9, 18 and 31 of The Civil Procedure Rules give the court a wide discretion to allow either party, at any stage of proceedings, to alter or amend pleadings in such a manner and on such terms as may be necessary for the purpose of determining the real question in controversy between the parties.
Civil Procedure — Amendment of Pleadings — Guiding Principles
The paramount guiding principle in exercising discretion to allow amendment is that the intended amendment should enable the court to determine the real questions in controversy between the parties, without causing injustice to the other party. Prejudice which can be compensated by the award of costs is not an injustice.
Civil Procedure — Amendment of Pleadings — Amendment of Dismissed Application
No amendment may be made to an application that stands dismissed, as such amendment cannot advance the cause of determining the real question in controversy between the parties where the application itself no longer exists before the court.
Civil Procedure — Amendment of Pleadings — Duty to Disclose Substance of Proposed Amendment
Where an applicant seeks leave to amend pleadings but fails to disclose the facts sought to be introduced by amendment, the court cannot determine whether such amendment would advance the cause of determining the real question in controversy and must refuse the application.

Legislation cited (3)

Cases cited (1)

  • Gaso Transport Services (Bus) Ltd v Obene [1990-94] EA 88

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Onekgiu v Towkiny & 4 Others (Miscellaneous Application No. 43 of 2020) [2020] UGHC 152 (23 July 2020)
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.