Wakilii

Salaam Bank Limited v Karungi Sheila Kajungu and Others (Miscellaneous Application No. 404 of 2025)

High Court · [2025] UGCOMMC 153 · 2025 Application Granted AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Interlocutory application for leave to amend plaint in pending civil suit
Decision
Application granted with costs to the respondents; applicant to file and serve amended plaint within 15 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 the applicant bank leave to amend its plaint to attach a survey and valuation report that had been inadvertently omitted. The court held that the amendment was necessary for proper adjudication, was not made in bad faith, did not substitute a cause of action, and any prejudice to the respondents could be compensated by costs. The application was brought at the pre-trial stage and would avoid multiplicity of proceedings.

Outcome

Application granted with costs to the respondents; applicant to file and serve amended plaint within 15 days

Facts

Salaam Bank Limited instituted Civil Suit No. 1357 of 2024 against four defendants seeking remedies for breach of contract, fraudulent misrepresentation and professional negligence. The bank's claims were based in part on a survey and valuation report prepared by the 3rd defendant, Wrok Valuation Consultants Ltd, regarding property in Kampala. The bank inadvertently omitted to attach the report to the plaint, having been unable to locate it at the time of filing. The report was subsequently recovered. The bank applied for leave to amend the plaint to include the report. The 1st and 2nd respondents opposed on grounds of delay. The 3rd and 4th respondents opposed, contending the document had always been in the bank's possession, that the amendment sought to patch gaps in the plaintiff's case exposed by their defence, and that the document's authenticity was questionable.

Issues

  1. Whether the Applicant should be granted leave to amend the plaint in Civil Suit No. 1357 of 2024?
  2. What remedies are available to the parties?

Orders

  • The Applicant is granted leave to amend its plaint in Civil Suit No. 1357 of 2024 to include the survey and valuation report by Wrok Valuation Consultants Ltd concerning the property comprised in LRV KCCA 172 Folio 7, Plots No. 15A, 1A-7A, 9A-11A and 3A-5A, Unit No. 484, Condominium Plan No. KCCA000022, Mackay Road, Kampala Central.
  • The Applicant shall file and serve the amended plaint to all the Defendants in Civil Suit No. 1357 of 2024 within fifteen (15) days from the date of this Ruling.
  • Costs of this application are awarded to the Respondents.

Rules and key headnotes

Civil Procedure — Amendment of Pleadings — Discretion of Court — Principles Governing Grant of Leave
The court has discretionary power under Order 6 rule 19 of the Civil Procedure Rules to allow amendment of pleadings at any stage of proceedings to determine the real issues in controversy between the parties, provided the amendment does not work injustice on the other side that cannot be compensated by costs, avoids multiplicity of proceedings, is not made in bad faith, and is not prohibited by law.
Civil Procedure — Amendment of Pleadings — Attachment of Inadvertently Omitted Document — Pre-Trial Stage
Where an applicant seeks to amend a plaint at the pre-trial stage to attach a document that supports an already pleaded cause of action and was inadvertently omitted, and the amendment does not substitute one cause of action for another or change the character of the action, leave to amend should be granted where any prejudice to the respondents can be compensated by an award of costs.
Civil Procedure — Amendment of Pleadings — Prejudice — Compensable by Costs
An injury that can be compensated by way of costs is not treated as an injustice for purposes of opposing an amendment of pleadings, and delay in hearing the main suit caused by an interlocutory application for amendment is prejudice that can be atoned for by an award of costs.

Legislation cited (6)

Cases cited (3)

  • Oriental Insurance Brokers Ltd v Transocean (U) Limited (Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 55 of 1995)
  • Gaso Transport Services (Bus) Ltd v Martin Adala Obene (Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 4 of 1994)
  • Eastern Bakery v Castelino [1958] EA 461

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Salaam Bank Limited v Karungi Sheila Kajungu and Others (Miscellaneous Application No. 404 of 2025) [2025] UGCommC 153 (10 June 2025)
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.