Wakilii

Seninde Miriam and Liz Kibalama t a Lise General Merchandise and Supplies v Mukwano Enterprises Ltd (Miscellaneous Application No. 1423 of 2025)

High Court · [2026] UGCOMMC 20 · 2026 Application Granted AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Application for extension of time to file amended plaint out of time, arising from Miscellaneous Application No. 662 of 2023 and Civil Suit No. 277 of 2019
Decision
Application granted with directions for filing amended plaint and written statement of defence within specified timelines

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 application for extension of time to file an amended plaint out of time. The court held that the applicants had shown sufficient cause, as their failure to file within time was due to counsel's negligence in relying on erroneous legal advice that an application for extension could not be filed while other interlocutory applications were pending. Applying the principle that mistakes of counsel should not be visited upon vigilant litigants, the court found no undue delay and extended the time for filing.

Outcome

Application granted with directions for filing amended plaint and written statement of defence within specified timelines

Facts

The applicants had been granted leave to amend their plaint in Civil Suit No. 277 of 2019 vide Miscellaneous Application No. 662 of 2023. The ruling was delivered on 19 August 2024 in the absence of their lawyers, who believed the ruling was scheduled for 10 September 2024. Their lawyers immediately filed the amended plaint without first seeking leave to file out of time. The applicants could not apply for extension of time because the respondent had filed two applications: one seeking leave to appeal the decision granting leave to amend, and another seeking to strike out the amended plaint filed out of time. The applicants waited for these applications to be determined. On 12 June 2025, the amended plaint was struck off the record vide Miscellaneous Application No. 1856 of 2024. The applicants then filed this application on 24 June 2025 seeking extension of time to file the amended plaint.

Issues

  1. Whether the time within which to file the Applicants' amended plaint in Civil Suit No. 277 of 2019 should be enlarged?
  2. What remedies are available to the parties?

Orders

  • Application granted.
  • The Applicants are directed to file and serve their amended plaint within fifteen (15) days from the date of this ruling.
  • The Respondent shall file and serve its amended written statement of defence within fifteen (15) days from the date of receipt of the amended plaint.
  • Costs of this application are awarded to the Respondent.

Rules and key headnotes

Civil Procedure — Extension of Time — Amendment of Pleadings — Sufficient Cause
Time to file an amended plaint under Order 6 rule 25 of the Civil Procedure Rules may be extended where the applicant shows sufficient cause. Sufficient cause means that a party has not acted negligently or in want of bona fides, and has not remained inactive without justification.
Civil Procedure — Mistake of Counsel — Effect on Litigant
Lapses or mistakes of counsel, though negligent, cannot be visited upon a vigilant litigant. Where a litigant has instructed counsel and relied on counsel's advice, the litigant's interests should not be defeated by the mistakes and lapses of counsel.
Civil Procedure — Extension of Time — Pending Interlocutory Applications — Effect
Unless proceedings have been stayed, there is no law that bars a party from filing an application for extension of time merely because other interlocutory applications are pending in the same matter.

Legislation cited (9)

Cases cited (11)

  • Oriental Insurance Brokers Limited v Transocean (U) Limited (Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 55 of 1995)
  • Uganda Telecom Ltd v ZTE Corporation (Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 3 of 2017)
  • Mukisa Biscuit Manufacturing Co. Ltd v West End Distributors Limited [1969] EA 696
  • Banco Arabe Espanol v Bank of Uganda [1992] 2 EA 22
  • Dr. Wasswa Joseph Matovu v Makerere University and 2 Others (Supreme Court Civil Application No. 11 of 2021)
  • Hadondi Daniel v Yolamu Egondi (Court of Appeal Civil Appeal No. 67 of 2003)
  • Gideon Mosa Onchwati Vs Kenya Oil Co. Ltd and Another [2017] eKLR
  • Parimal Vs Veena Alias Bhati [2011] 3 SCC 545
  • Nicholas Roussos v Gulam Hussein Habib Virani & Another (Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 9 of 1993)
  • Attorney General v AKPM Lutaaya (Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 12 of 2007)
  • Godfrey Magezi and Brian Mbazira v Sudhir Ruparelia (Supreme Court Civil Application No. 10 of 2002)

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Seninde Miriam and Liz Kibalama t a Lise General Merchandise and Supplies v Mukwano Enterprises Ltd (Miscellaneous Application No. 1423 of 2025) [2026] UGCommC 20 (27 January 2026)
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.