Wakilii

Rwansibo David v Uganda Electricity Transmission Company Limited (Miscellaneous Application 4 of 2018)

Tribunal · [2022] UGEDT 3 · 2022 Application Granted AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Application for leave to amend pleadings in an electricity compensation dispute
Decision
Application granted with costs to the Respondent

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 Tribunal granted leave to amend the complaint to substitute the location of the disputed land from Ruganda to Lyanda and reduce the claim amount. The Tribunal held that the proposed amendment did not introduce a new cause of action but merely corrected an error in the location name, as evidenced by consistent references to Lyanda in prior proceedings. The amendment would not cause injustice that could not be compensated by costs and would avoid multiplicity of proceedings.

Outcome

Application granted with costs to the Respondent

Facts

The Applicant filed a complaint on 22 December 2017 claiming compensation for two pieces of land allegedly affected by the Respondent's electricity transmission project: one at Katerera Trading Centre and another stated as being at Ruganda village. The Respondent compensated the Applicant for land at Katerera Trading Centre on 13 April 2013, providing cash settlement of UGX 313,809 and a resettlement house. The Applicant subsequently sought to amend the complaint to reflect that the second piece of land was located at Lyanda (not Ruganda) and to reduce the claim from UGX 500,000,000 to UGX 50,000,000. Throughout tribunal proceedings from May to June 2018, the Applicant's counsel consistently referred to the disputed land as being at Lyanda. The Respondent opposed the amendment, arguing it introduced a new cause of action and that the Applicant had filed a baseless claim regarding Katerera after already being compensated.

Issues

  1. Whether the applicant should be granted leave to amend the complaint to substitute the location of the disputed land from Ruganda to Lyanda and reduce the claim from UGX 500,000,000 to UGX 50,000,000.
  2. Whether the proposed amendment introduces a new cause of action.
  3. Whether granting the amendment would prejudice the respondent.

Orders

  • Leave to amend granted to the Applicant/Complainant in the terms proposed.
  • The Applicant/Complainant to pay costs of this application.

Rules and key headnotes

Civil Procedure — Amendments — Principles for Granting Leave to Amend
Courts possess wide and extensive powers of amendment designed to prevent the failure of justice due to procedural errors, mistakes and defects, and to serve the aims of justice by determining the true substantive merits of the case and freeing parties from technicalities of procedure.
Civil Procedure — Amendments — Test for Prejudice
A proposed amendment should not work injustice to the other side, but an injury that can be compensated by way of costs is not an injustice sufficient to refuse leave to amend.
Civil Procedure — Amendments — Correction of Errors in Pleadings
Where a pleading contains an apparent error in naming a location and the applicant has consistently referred to the correct location in subsequent proceedings, thereby putting the respondent on notice, an amendment to correct the error does not introduce a new cause of action and should be allowed to avoid the tribunal giving judgment in ignorance of facts which ought to be known before rights are definitely decided.
Civil Procedure — Amendments — Avoidance of Multiplicity of Proceedings
A multiplicity of proceedings should be avoided as far as possible and all amendments which avoid such multiplicity should be allowed.

Legislation cited (7)

Cases cited (2)

  • Gaso Transport Services v Obene (1990-94 HCB)
  • Bright Chicks Uganda Ltd v Dan Bahingire (Miscellaneous Application No. 254 of 2011)

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Rwansibo David v Uganda Electricity Transmission Company Limited (Miscellaneous Application 4 of 2018) [2022] UGEDT 3 (1 April 2022)
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.