Perfect Roses Farm Limited & Another v Bank of Africa (U) Limited (Miscellaneous Application 238 of 2021)
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 granted the applicants leave to amend their plaint for a second time, allowing them to add new defendants (transferees of security, the bailiff, and the Commissioner Land Registration) and plead better particulars of fraud. The court held that amendments before hearing should be freely allowed if they can be made without injustice to the other side. All five preliminary objections raised by the respondent were dismissed.
Outcome
Leave to amend plaint granted with specific exclusions; matter to proceed in main suit
Facts
The 1st Applicant obtained credit facilities totalling UGX 460,000,000 from the Respondent bank, secured by four plots of land. The 1st Applicant defaulted and the Respondent sold the security. The Applicants filed the main suit (Civil Suit No. 355 of 2017) challenging the manner of sale. After the main suit was filed, the Respondent allegedly sold the security to third parties who became registered proprietors. The Applicants had previously obtained leave to amend the plaint once by consent (Miscellaneous Application No. 634 of 2018). They now sought a second amendment to add new defendants (the transferees, persons allegedly involved in fraud, the bailiff, and the Commissioner Land Registration) and to plead better particulars of fraud, illegality, and misrepresentation. The Applicants had changed advocates twice during the proceedings.
Issues
- Whether the applicants should be granted leave to amend their plaint for a second time.
- Whether the preliminary objections raised by the respondent should be sustained.
- Whether the proposed amendments would introduce substantially new causes of action.
- Whether new defendants could properly be joined to the main suit.
Orders
- The Applicant shall file and serve its amended Plaint as proposed in the draft 2nd amended plaint, save for the addition of M/S ENS Africa, Robert Kayira, Magidu Kintu and Bukenya Elly as defendants, within 7 (seven) days from the date of this ruling.
- The costs of this Application shall abide by the outcome of the main suit.
Rules and key headnotes
Legislation cited (10)
- Civil Procedure Act s.98
- Civil Procedure Rules Order 6 rule 19
- Civil Procedure Rules Order 1 rule 1
- Civil Procedure Rules Order 1 rule 3
- Civil Procedure Rules Order 1 rule 13
- Oaths Act s.5(1)(a)
- Constitution of Uganda Article 126(2)(e)
- Civil Procedure Rules Order 12 rule 3
- Civil Procedure Rules Order 8 rule 18(2)
- Judicature Act s.46(2)
Cases cited (3)
- Male H. Mabirizi K. Kiwanuka v Attorney General (Supreme Court Miscellaneous Application No. 7 of 2018)
- Mulowooza Brothers Ltd v N. Shah & Co. Ltd (Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 26 of 2010)
- Eastern Bakery v Castelino (1958) EA 461
Full judgment
The original judgment as reported. Read the original PDF before relying on any passage.