Wakilii

Semanja Godfrey v Moses Mawagali Lusalabaga and Others (Civil Suit 336 of 2023)

High Court · [2025] UGHC 369 · 2025 Preliminary Objection Upheld AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Preliminary objection to amended plaint in first instance civil suit
Decision
Amended plaint struck off; plaintiff ordered to file fresh amended plaint in compliance with court order

Observed later treatment

Cited — treatment unverified cited in 3 (treatment unverified) Sequitur — Uganda’s citator · Derived from citing cases in the Wakilii corpus — not an assertion that this case is good law.

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.

No adverse treatment recorded Cited 3 times with no adverse treatment recorded; not yet tested on the merits. Citations rising — 3 citing cases on record, 3 in the most recent three data years. Derived from citing cases in the Wakilii corpus — a deterministic signal, not legal advice.

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 upheld a preliminary objection to the plaintiff's amended plaint. The plaintiff had been granted leave to amend the plaint solely to remove the 7th and 8th defendants, but instead amended multiple other paragraphs without seeking further leave. The court held that circumventing a court order amounts to an illegality that cannot be condoned, struck off the non-compliant amended plaint, and ordered the plaintiff to file a fresh amended plaint in accordance with the original court order.

Outcome

Amended plaint struck off; plaintiff ordered to file fresh amended plaint in compliance with court order

Facts

The plaintiff filed Civil Suit No. 336 of 2023 against nine defendants. On 27 January 2025, during scheduling, the plaintiff sought and was granted leave to amend the plaint by removing the 7th and 8th defendants only. The court order expressly limited the amendment to this removal. On 3 February 2025, the plaintiff filed an amended plaint which not only removed the 7th and 8th defendants but also amended multiple other paragraphs including paragraphs 8(f), (g), (i), (l), (m), (n), (t), (y), (cc), and paragraph 12, and omitted paragraph 8(w) of the original plaint. The 6th defendant raised a preliminary objection that the plaintiff had exceeded the scope of the court order and substantially altered the cause of action without seeking further leave.

Issues

  1. Whether the plaintiff's amended plaint complied with the court order of 27 January 2025 which limited amendment to removal of the 7th and 8th defendants only.

Orders

  • The Amended Plaint filed by the Plaintiff on 3 February 2025 is struck off the court record.
  • The Plaintiff shall amend his Plaint in accordance with the court order issued on 27 January 2025.
  • The amended Plaint shall be filed and served within 15 days from the date of this ruling.
  • The Defendants shall file and serve their amended Written Statements of Defence within 15 days from the date they are served with the Amended Plaint.
  • Costs shall be in the cause.

Rules and key headnotes

Civil Procedure — Amendment of Pleadings — Compliance with Court Orders — Scope of Leave Granted
Where a court grants leave to amend pleadings for a specific limited purpose, a party may not introduce additional amendments beyond the scope of the leave granted without seeking further leave of court.
Civil Procedure — Court Orders — Compliance — Consequences of Non-Compliance
Circumventing a court order amounts to an illegality that cannot be condoned by the court, and pleadings filed in contravention of a court order are liable to be struck off.

Legislation cited (1)

Cases cited (2)

  • Gaso Transport Services (Bus) Ltd v Martin Adala Obene (Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 4 of 1994)
  • Makula International Ltd v His Eminence Cardinal Nsubuga and Another (1982) HCB 11

Cases citing this judgment (3)

How later Ugandan judgments in the Wakilii corpus have cited this case. Treatment labels come from Sequitur — Uganda’s citator — each backed by a verbatim span from the citing judgment, and are not an assertion that this case is, or is not, good law.

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Semanja Godfrey v Moses Mawagali Lusalabaga and Others (Civil Suit 336 of 2023) [2025] UGHC 369 (30 April 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.