Wakilii

Saudah Namukwaya and Others v Mawula Stephen and Others (Miscellaneous Application No. 113 of 2023)

High Court · [2025] UGHC 364 · 2025 Application Granted AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Application for leave to amend plaint in pending civil suit
Decision
Leave to amend plaint granted with directions for service and amended 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 High Court granted leave to amend the plaint to correct factual errors regarding the location of a matrimonial home and graveyard, which were mistakenly stated to be on the suit land (Block 13 Plot 34) when they were actually on the neighbouring plot (Block 13 Plot 13). The court held that the amendment was necessary for proper adjudication, did not change the cause of action (recovery of suit land), was not brought in bad faith, and would not prejudice the respondents as it clarified rather than altered the core dispute.

Outcome

Leave to amend plaint granted with directions for service and amended defence

Facts

The Applicants filed Civil Suit No. 008 of 2023 seeking declarations regarding land comprised in Bulemezi Block 13 Plot 34, claiming it formed part of the estate of the late Moses Kirabira. The original plaint stated that the late Kirabira's matrimonial home and family graveyard were situated on Plot 34. After the suit was instituted, the Applicants instructed surveyors to open boundaries for both Plot 34 and the neighbouring Plot 13. The survey report revealed that the ancestral home and graveyards were actually located on Plot 13, not Plot 34 as stated in the plaint. The Applicants sought leave to amend the plaint to correct this factual error and clarify that the plaintiffs and children of the late Kirabira were cultivating and in possession of Plot 34. The respondents opposed the application, arguing it was brought in bad faith to defeat their defence after witness statements and trial bundles had been filed.

Issues

  1. Whether the Applicant should be granted leave to file the amended Plaint in Civil Suit No. 008 of 2023

Orders

  • The Applicants are granted leave to amend paragraphs 5(d) and (g) of the Plaint.
  • The Applicants will serve the Respondents with the Amended Plaint within 15 days from the date of this ruling.
  • The Respondents will file an Amended Written Statement of Defence within 15 days from the date of service of the amended Plaint.
  • Costs shall be in the cause.

Rules and key headnotes

Civil Procedure — Amendment of Pleadings — Discretion of Court — Principles Governing Exercise of Discretion
The court may at any stage of proceedings allow either party to amend pleadings as may be just and necessary for determining the real questions in controversy between the parties, provided the amendment does not work an injustice to the other side that cannot be compensated by costs, does not result from malafides, avoids multiplicity of proceedings, and is not prohibited by law.
Civil Procedure — Amendment of Pleadings — Correction of Factual Errors — New Information from Survey
Where new information emerges from a survey report after institution of a suit that corrects factual errors in the plaint regarding the location of features on disputed land, the court will grant leave to amend the plaint to reflect the proper and precise facts, as such amendment is necessary for proper adjudication and does not constitute bad faith.
Civil Procedure — Amendment of Pleadings — Cause of Action — Amendment Not Changing Cause of Action
An amendment to a plaint that clarifies factual details regarding what is located on suit land does not change the cause of action where the cause of action remains the recovery of the suit land itself, and such amendment will be allowed even after witness statements and trial bundles have been filed.

Legislation cited (3)

Cases cited (1)

  • Gaso Transport Services (Bus) Ltd v Martin Adala Obene (Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 4 of 1994)

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Saudah Namukwaya and Others v Mawula Stephen and Others (Miscellaneous Application No. 113 of 2023) [2025] UGHC 364 (5 May 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.