Wakilii

Opec Prime Properties Ltd & Anor v Attorney General (Miscellaneous Cause No. 41 of 2018)

High Court · [2018] UGCOMMC 84 · 2018 Application Granted AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Oral application for amendment of chamber summons to add prayer for interim injunction restraining eviction from project property
Decision
Leave to amend granted with directions for filing of amended pleadings and right of reply

Observed later treatment

Cited — treatment unverified cited in 1 (treatment unverified) Sequitur — Uganda’s citator · Derived from citing cases in the Wakilii corpus — not an assertion that this case is good law.

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.

No adverse treatment recorded Cited 1 time with no adverse treatment recorded; not yet tested on the merits. Derived from citing cases in the Wakilii corpus — a deterministic signal, not legal advice.

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

Held that the applicants are granted leave to amend their chamber summons to introduce a prayer restraining the Attorney General from evicting them from the project property. The court applied the principles from GASO Transport Services Ltd v Adala Obene that amendments should be allowed where they prevent multiplicity of suits and any injustice can be atoned for in costs. The Attorney General failed to demonstrate that the amendment would occasion injustice that could not be compensated in costs.

Outcome

Leave to amend granted with directions for filing of amended pleadings and right of reply

Facts

The applicants filed a chamber summons in a dispute with the Attorney General concerning the Nakawa-Naguru Satellite Town Project. At the first hearing on 20 September 2018, counsel for the applicants made an oral application to amend the chamber summons by adding a prayer for an interim injunction restraining the Government from evicting the second applicant from the project land. The applicants submitted that after filing the original application, they received a letter dated 9 August 2018 from the Attorney General terminating the PPP Agreement for construction of the Naguru satellite city and threatening eviction. The second applicant was the registered proprietor of the project land and in possession. The Attorney General objected, arguing the amendment was an afterthought, an abuse of process, and would cause injustice.

Issues

  1. Whether the applicants should be granted leave to amend their chamber summons to introduce an additional prayer for interim injunction.
  2. Whether the proposed amendment would occasion injustice to the respondent.
  3. Whether the proposed amendment would prevent a multiplicity of suits.
  4. Whether the proposed amendments are lawful.

Orders

  • Application granted.
  • Applicant granted leave to amend the pleadings as prayed.
  • Applicants to file amended pleadings within 5 days from 5 October 2018.
  • Respondent may reply in accordance with the Rules of procedure if they wish.

Rules and key headnotes

Civil Procedure — Amendment of Pleadings — Oral Application — Procedure
An application for amendment of pleadings may be made orally before the court, provided the opposing party is put on notice and has an opportunity to respond.
Civil Procedure — Amendment of Pleadings — Discretion of Court — Principles Applicable
Under Order 6 rule 19 of the Civil Procedure Rules, the court has discretion to allow amendment of pleadings at any stage of proceedings in such manner as may be necessary for determining the real questions in controversy between the parties. This discretion is guided by principles including: the amendment should not occasion injustice that cannot be atoned for in costs; multiplicity of proceedings must be avoided; applications made mala fide should not be granted; and no amendment should be made where expressly prohibited by law.
Civil Procedure — Amendment of Pleadings — Injustice to Other Party — Burden of Proof
Where a party opposing an amendment alleges that it would occasion injustice, the onus is on that party to prove that the anticipated prejudice cannot be atoned for in damages or costs. A cursory reference to potential injustice without elaboration is insufficient to discharge this burden.
Civil Procedure — Amendment of Pleadings — Avoidance of Multiplicity of Suits
Amendments which bring all issues arising from the same facts before the court in one proceeding should be allowed in order to avoid multiplicity of suits and ensure complete resolution of the dispute between the parties.
Civil Procedure — Amendment of Pleadings — Early Stage of Litigation
Courts are more flexible in allowing amendments when applications are made promptly at the earliest stage in litigation. Where an amendment is sought at the first hearing of the main cause before the substantive application has been heard, this constitutes an early stage at which amendments should be freely allowed if they cause no irremediable injustice.

Legislation cited (1)

Cases cited (3)

  • D.D Bawa Limited v G.S Didar Singh [1961] EA 282
  • GASO Transport Services Limited v Adala Obene (Court of Appeal Civil Appeal No. 4 of 1994)
  • Eastern Bakery v Castelino [1958] 1 EA 461

Cases citing this judgment (1)

How later Ugandan judgments in the Wakilii corpus have cited this case. Treatment labels come from Sequitur — Uganda’s citator — each backed by a verbatim span from the citing judgment, and are not an assertion that this case is, or is not, good law.

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Opec Prime Properties Ltd & Anor v Attorney General (Miscellaneous Cause No. 41 of 2018) [2018] UGCommC 84 (5 October 2018)
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.