Wakilii

Semakula v Stanbic Bank Ugand Ltd (Miscellaneous Application No. 642 of 2011)

High Court · [2012] UGCOMMC 182 · 2012 Application Partly Allowed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Application for leave to amend plaint in underlying civil suit arising from redesignation of Land Division Civil Suit No. 517 of 2007 to Commercial Court Civil Suit No. 432 of 2009
Decision
Application for leave to amend partly granted with specific amendments allowed and others disallowed; costs to 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 court partly allowed the application for amendment. Amendments based on the existing mortgage relationship pleaded in the original plaint were permitted to the extent of claiming general damages, but claims for special damages for breach of contract and mesne profits were disallowed as new causes of action. Factual amendments that amplified the original claim and gave a coherent chronological account were allowed. Amendments introducing claims for special damages were rejected.

Outcome

Application for leave to amend partly granted with specific amendments allowed and others disallowed; costs to respondent

Facts

The applicant originally sued five defendants over title to land comprised in Block 208 plots 279 and 280 at Kawempe. After withdrawing the suit against four defendants, the applicant sought leave to amend the plaint against the sole remaining defendant, Stanbic Bank Uganda Limited (successor to Uganda Commercial Bank). The original plaint alleged fraud in the mortgaging of the suit property. The applicant mortgaged the property to the then Uganda Commercial Bank and the titles remained with the bank. The property was later transferred to third parties and mortgaged to the respondent by a third party. The respondent's mortgage was subsequently deregistered. The applicant sought to amend the plaint to introduce claims for breach of mortgage obligations, breach of a temporary injunction, and mesne profits, supported by various court judgments and documents evidencing the mortgage relationship.

Issues

  1. Whether leave should be granted to amend the plaint to introduce a claim for breach of contract.
  2. Whether the proposed amendments would introduce new causes of action prohibited by law.
  3. Whether the proposed amendments for special damages and mesne profits should be allowed.
  4. Whether the claim for breach of contract would be time-barred.
  5. Whether amendments introducing factual particulars that amplify the original pleadings should be allowed.

Orders

  • Application for amendment partly allowed.
  • Paragraph 3(a) of the proposed amended plaint allowed, but only to the extent of claiming general damages; claim for special damages disallowed.
  • Paragraph 3(b) allowed except for the claim for special damages.
  • Paragraph 3(c) claiming mesne profits disallowed as a new cause of action.
  • Factual amendments in paragraphs 6, 9-25 allowed as amplifying the original claim.
  • Paragraph 26 of the proposed amended plaint disallowed.
  • Amendments to paragraph 29 subparagraphs (a) and (b) disallowed.
  • Proposed prayer (b) disallowed; to be substituted by a claim for general damages.
  • Proposed prayer (c) disallowed.
  • Prayer (e) amended to read: 'An order that the plaintiff is entitled to possession of the Duplicate Certificate of title now in custody of the court.'
  • Costs of the application awarded to the respondent to be borne by the applicant.

Rules and key headnotes

Amendment of Pleadings — Introduction of New Causes of Action
An amendment that introduces a new and distinct cause of action which substitutes or fundamentally changes the character of the original claim ought not to be allowed, even where the new claim arises from facts connected to the original dispute.
Amendment of Pleadings — Special Damages and Limitation
Where a proposed amendment introduces a claim for special damages arising from a cause of action not originally pleaded, and the claim is time-barred or would cause serious prejudice to the defendant at an advanced stage of litigation, such amendment should be refused.
Amendment of Pleadings — Amplification of Existing Facts
Amendments that amplify, clarify, or provide a more coherent chronological account of facts already pleaded in support of the original cause of action should be allowed where they do not introduce a new claim and do not prejudice the opposite party.
Amendment of Pleadings — General Principles
Amendments to pleadings should be freely allowed before hearing if they can be made without injustice to the other side, and there is no injustice if the other side can be compensated by costs, but the court will refuse leave where the amendment would prejudice the rights of the opposite party, such as by depriving them of a defence of limitation.
Mesne Profits — Nature and Requirements
Mesne profits are damages for trespass arising from the particular relationship of landlord and tenant; a claim for mesne profits cannot be sustained where the plaintiff is in occupation of the property or where possession by another party has not been pleaded.

Legislation cited (4)

Cases cited (8)

  • Gaso Transport Services Ltd v Martin Adala Obene (Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 4 of 1984)
  • Eastern Bakeries v Castelino [1958] EA 461
  • Budding v Murdoch (1875) 1 Ch D 42
  • Ma Shwe Mya v Maung Po Hnaung (1921) 48 IA 214
  • Raleigh v Goschen [1898] 1 Ch 73
  • Weldon v Neal (1887) 19 QBD 394
  • Hilton v Sutton Steam Laundry [1946] KB 65
  • Bramwell v Bramwell [1942] 1 All ER 137

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Semakula v Stanbic Bank Ugand Ltd (Miscellaneous Application No. 642 of 2011) [2012] UGCommC 182 (13 January 2012)
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.