Wakilii

Shell Uganda Ltd v C & A Tours and Travel Operators Uganda Ltd (Miscellaneous Application No. 955 of 2016)

High Court · [2016] UGCOMMC 219 · 2016 Application Dismissed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Application for leave to amend written statement of defence and counterclaim in ongoing civil suit
Decision
Application for amendment dismissed with costs to the 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 dismissed the application for leave to amend the counterclaim. The proposed amendment sought to introduce new particulars of special damages outside the limitation period prescribed by section 3(1) of the Limitation Act, which bars claims after six years. The amendment was not a mere correction of mathematical error but constituted a new ground of claim based on a previously unpleaded invoice, which had to be specifically pleaded and proved. Allowing the amendment would prejudice the respondent who had already adduced evidence and closed its case without opportunity for rebuttal.

Outcome

Application for amendment dismissed with costs to the respondent

Facts

Shell Uganda Ltd brought an application to amend its counterclaim in an underlying civil suit (HCCS No. 55 of 2003) to increase the amount claimed from UGX 140,693,296 to UGX 153,132,853. The applicant claimed that the original counterclaim, filed in 2004, had omitted the full value of invoice 3180509 due to the invoice being misplaced, and also sought to add UGX 3,441,340 for utility payments settled after filing the counterclaim. The respondent opposed the application on grounds that the claims related to supplies made in 2003 and were now time-barred under the Limitation Act, and that the respondent had already closed its case and would be prejudiced by the amendment. The applicant subsequently abandoned the utility bills claim but maintained the claim for the invoice shortfall.

Issues

  1. Whether the applicant should be granted leave to amend its counterclaim to increase the amount claimed from UGX 140,693,296 to UGX 153,132,853.
  2. Whether the proposed amendment introduces new claims that are barred by limitation under section 3(1) of the Limitation Act.
  3. Whether granting the amendment would prejudice the respondent who had already closed its case.

Orders

  • Application dismissed.
  • Costs awarded to the respondent.

Rules and key headnotes

Amendment of Pleadings — Limitation — Introduction of Time-Barred Claims
An amendment to pleadings that introduces a new claim which is barred by limitation will not be allowed, even where the court has discretionary powers to permit amendments at any stage under Order 6 rule 19 of the Civil Procedure Rules.
Amendment of Pleadings — New Grounds of Claim — Special Damages
Where an applicant seeks to amend a counterclaim by adding a previously unpleaded invoice as a particular of special damages, this constitutes a new ground of claim rather than mere elaboration of existing particulars, and amounts to introducing a new fact that must be specifically pleaded and proved under Order 7 rule 2.
Amendment of Pleadings — Prejudice — Closed Evidence
An amendment that introduces a new claim will be refused where it would prejudice the opposite party who has already adduced evidence and closed their case without opportunity to rebut the new claim.
Limitation of Actions — Breach of Contract — Six-Year Period
Claims for breach of contract must be brought within six years from the time the cause of action arose under section 3(1) of the Limitation Act Cap 80, and amendments seeking to introduce particulars of claims arising from contracts concluded more than six years prior will be rejected as statute-barred.

Legislation cited (6)

  • Civil Procedure Rules O.6 r.19
  • Civil Procedure Rules O.6 r.7
  • Civil Procedure Rules O.7 r.2
  • Civil Procedure Rules O.7 r.11(1)(d)
  • Limitation Act Cap.80 s.3(1)
  • Limitation Act s.4

Cases cited (8)

  • Eastern Bakery v Castelino [1958] EA 461
  • Mulowooza & Brothers Limited v N Shah & Co Ltd (Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 26 of 2010)
  • Nzirane v Lukwago (1975) HCB 75
  • Gaso Transport Services (Bus) Ltd v Obene [1990-94] EA 88
  • Auto Garage and others v Motokov (No 3) [1971] 1 EA 514
  • Mehta v Shah [1965] EA 321
  • Adonia v Mutekanga [1970] EA 429
  • Iga v Makerere University [1972] 1 EA 65

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Shell Uganda Ltd v C & A Tours and Travel Operators Uganda Ltd (Miscellaneous Application No. 955 of 2016) [2016] UGCommC 219 (25 October 2016)
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.