Wakilii

Registered Trustees of the Archdiocese of Tororo v Tororo Municipal Council and 2 Others (Civil Suit No. 0028 of 2022; Miscellaneous Application No. 0009 of 2023)

High Court · [2026] UGHC 155 · 2026 Application Granted AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Application for leave to amend plaint arising from civil suit
Decision
Leave to amend plaint granted; applicant to file and serve amended plaint within 7 days

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 leave to amend the plaint to specify the particular plot in dispute within an amalgamated title. The court held that the proposed amendment did not introduce a new cause of action but merely clarified the subject matter, was in the interest of justice to avoid multiplicity of suits, and would not cause irremediable injustice to the respondents. The court overruled preliminary objections regarding service out of time and collective averments in the affidavit in reply.

Outcome

Leave to amend plaint granted; applicant to file and serve amended plaint within 7 days

Facts

The applicant, Registered Trustees of the Archdiocese of Tororo, filed a civil suit concerning land comprised in Bukedi Lease Hold Register Volume 1149 Folio 2, an amalgamated title comprising multiple plots. The applicant sought leave to amend the plaint to specify that the actual plot in contention was plot M46, one of several plots amalgamated on the title. The applicant averred that parties had agreed after mediation to amend pleadings to clarify the specific plot in dispute. The 2nd respondent opposed, arguing that the amendment would introduce a new cause of action and that he had never agreed to amend pleadings. The 2nd respondent raised preliminary objections regarding service out of time and collective averments in the affidavit in reply made without written authority of other respondents.

Issues

  1. Whether leave to amend the plaint should be granted to the applicant.

Orders

  • Application allowed.
  • The applicant shall amend its plaint according to the proposed amended plaint.
  • The applicant shall file and serve the amended plaint upon the respondents within 7 days of this ruling.
  • The costs of the application shall be paid by the applicant.

Rules and key headnotes

Amendment of Pleadings — Principles Governing Grant of Leave
Leave to amend pleadings should be granted where the amendment does not work injustice to the opposite party, is in the interest of justice to avoid multiplicity of suits, is made in good faith, and is not expressly or impliedly prohibited by law.
Amendment of Pleadings — Clarification versus New Cause of Action
An amendment that specifies with greater particularity a claim already pleaded in the original plaint does not introduce a new cause of action but merely clarifies the subject matter in dispute.
Affidavits — Collective Averments and Written Authority
An affidavit deponent who deposes to matters within his own knowledge does not require written authority from other parties merely because the averments concern facts relevant to those parties, provided the deponent does not purport to swear the affidavit on behalf of others.
Service of Process — Time for Service Where Hearing Date Fixed After Signing
Where an application is signed and sealed by the Registrar before a hearing date is fixed, the time within which to serve the application runs from the date the hearing date is fixed, not from the date of signing and sealing.

Legislation cited (4)

Cases cited (8)

  • Mannington Kato Kaaya v Tom Kigoonya Kaaya and Others (HCMA No. 181 of 2019)
  • Taremvva Kamishana Tomas v Attorney General (HCMA No. 38 of 2012)
  • [2021] UGCommC 178
  • [2021] UGCommC 176
  • Dr. Akampumuza v Absa Bank Ltd and Others (HCMA No. 999 of 2022)
  • Kato Hussein and Another v Vijay Amritlal Kotccha (HCMA No. 0009 of 2022)
  • Nabanja Gorret v Nabukalu Helion (HCMA No. 250 of 2015)
  • Gaso Transport Services Ltd v Martin Adala Obenc (SCCA No. 4 of 1994)

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Registered Trustees of the Archdiocese of Tororo v Tororo Municipal Council and 2 Others (Civil Suit No. 0028 of 2022; Miscellaneous Application No. 0009 of 2023) [2026] UGHC 155 (23 January 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.