Wakilii

Paul Wasswa and 2 Others v Shemmy M Senkatuka and Another [2026] UGHCLD 171

High Court · 2026 Application Dismissed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Interlocutory application by notice of motion for leave to amend a written statement of defence in a pending land suit
Decision
Application for leave to amend dismissed; the suit proceeds on the original written statement of defence

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 held that failure to attach a proposed amended pleading to an application for leave to amend is an irregularity, not automatically fatal, where the draft is later filed and served before determination and the opposite party suffers no prejudice; the preliminary objection was therefore dismissed. On the merits, applying Order 6 Rule 19 and Gaso Transport Services v Obene, leave was refused because the proposed amendment did not merely particularise the pleaded defence but abandoned the specific 0.101 hectares claimed and asserted a broader, less defined claim over the whole kibanja, substantially enlarging the factual foundation and character of the defence and prejudicing the respondents after pleadings had closed, witness statements and trial bundles were filed and hearing dates fixed.

Outcome

Application for leave to amend dismissed; the suit proceeds on the original written statement of defence

Facts

The respondents sued the applicants in Civil Suit No. 1297 of 2023 over land occupied by the applicants at Naalya, Wakiso District. The applicants filed a written statement of defence and counterclaim in December 2023 through their then advocates, pleading an equitable interest in land measuring 0.101 hectares based on uninterrupted occupation and developments over 38 years. After changing advocates several times, the applicants sought leave to amend the defence, contending that previous counsel had omitted annexures and had failed to plead how their late mother, Nalongo Nalunga Catherine, acquired a kibanja allegedly given to her in 1965 by Miriamu Namubiru, who had also allocated portions to Beatrice Senkatuka (the respondents' mother) and Nakato Perusi. The proposed amendment omitted the pleaded acreage and introduced averments about cultivation, planting of trees, construction of a building and the historical family allocations. The draft amended defence was not attached to the application but was later filed with the affidavit in rejoinder and served. The respondents opposed the application, noting that pleadings had closed, scheduling was complete, witness statements and trial bundles had been filed, and hearing was fixed for 11–13 May 2026.

Issues

  1. Whether the application for leave to amend was defective for failure to attach the intended amended written statement of defence at the time of filing.
  2. Whether the applicants should be granted leave to amend their written statement of defence in Civil Suit No. 1297 of 2023.

Orders

  • Preliminary objection dismissed.
  • Application for leave to amend the written statement of defence dismissed.
  • No order as to costs.

Rules and key headnotes

Civil Procedure — Amendment of Pleadings — Failure to Attach Proposed Amended Pleading — Curable Irregularity
Although the proper practice is to annex the proposed amended pleading to an application for leave to amend, failure to do so at the time of filing is an irregularity that is not automatically fatal where the omission is cured by filing and serving the draft before determination of the application and no prejudice results to the opposite party.
Civil Procedure — Amendment of Pleadings — Judicial Discretion under Order 6 Rule 19
Under Order 6 Rule 19 of the Civil Procedure Rules the court has a wide discretion to allow amendment of pleadings at any stage where necessary to determine the real questions in controversy, but that discretion must be exercised judicially and in accordance with established principles, including good faith, absence of injustice to the opposite party, avoidance of multiplicity of suits and the absence of any statutory prohibition.
Civil Procedure — Amendment of Pleadings — Distinction between Further Particulars and Substantial Alteration of the Defence
A permissible amendment clarifies, particularises or refines an already pleaded case; leave will be refused where the proposed amendment abandons a specifically pleaded claim and substitutes a broader, less defined claim, thereby substantially enlarging the factual foundation and altering the character of the defence.
Civil Procedure — Amendment of Pleadings — Application at an Advanced Stage of Proceedings — Prejudice
Lateness alone does not bar amendment, but an amendment sought after pleadings have closed and witness statements, trial bundles and pre-trial procedures are complete must be scrutinised carefully to ensure it does not occasion procedural unfairness or prejudice incapable of compensation by costs.

Legislation cited (3)

Cases cited (5)

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Paul Wasswa and 2 Others v Shemmy M Senkatuka and Another [2026] UGHCLD 171 (11 May 2026)
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.