Wakilii

Ssebina & Others v Pearl Development Group Ltd & Others (Miscellaneous Application 151 of 2023)

High Court · [2024] UGHCLD 56 · 2024 Application Dismissed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Application for leave to amend plaint in ongoing civil suit arising from Civil Suit No. 927 of 2019
Decision
Application for leave to amend plaint dismissed

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 dismissed the application for leave to amend the plaint. The court held that applicants cannot use amendment to defeat defences already raised, particularly limitation defences. Where the Civil Procedure Rules provide a right to reply to a written statement of defence under Order 6 rule 9, parties must exercise that right rather than seeking to amend pleadings to address issues raised in defence. The intended amendment was an afterthought, mala fide, against the law of limitation, and prejudicial to respondents who had already pleaded their defences.

Outcome

Application for leave to amend plaint dismissed

Facts

The Applicants instituted Civil Suit No. 927 of 2019 and amended their plaint without leave on 29th November 2019. The 1st and 4th Respondents filed written statements of defence to the amended plaint. The 2nd and 3rd Respondents filed their written statement of defence later, dated 9th March 2020, and served it on the Applicants in mid-2021. Upon receiving this defence, the Applicants sought to amend their plaint again to address issues raised in the 2nd and 3rd Respondents' defence. The Applicants did not file replies to any of the written statements of defence but instead sought further amendment. The Respondents opposed the application, arguing that the amendment sought to cure defects in the claim, defeat limitation defences, introduce a new cause of action, and was mala fide.

Issues

  1. Whether the applicants should be granted leave to amend their plaint?

Orders

  • Application dismissed.
  • Costs to be in the main cause.

Rules and key headnotes

Amendment of Pleadings — Proper Use of Right to Reply versus Amendment
Where the Civil Procedure Rules provide a plaintiff with a right to reply to issues raised in a written statement of defence under Order 6 rule 9, the plaintiff must exercise that right rather than seeking to amend the plaint to respond to defences. The court's discretion to allow amendment is exercised only where the written law does not provide a solution to a legal issue.
Amendment of Pleadings — Prohibition on Defeating Defences
A party cannot amend his or her pleadings to defeat a defence already raised by the opposing party. Where respondents have raised defences such as limitation, lack of cause of action, or lack of locus standi, an amendment seeking to address or circumvent those defences will be disallowed as prejudicial.
Amendment of Pleadings — Mala Fides and Afterthought
An application for amendment that is an afterthought, made mala fide, intended to defeat limitation defences, or calculated to distort evidence already adduced by way of pleadings will not be granted. Such amendments prejudice respondents and constitute an improper attempt to cure fundamental defects in the suit.
Affidavits in Court Proceedings — Requirements and Propriety
Affidavits must be drawn in accordance with Order 19 rule 3 of the Civil Procedure Rules and must contain true facts on oath designed for use as proof in court. Affidavits that are scandalous, contain personal attacks on litigants, or express personal feelings and beliefs rather than evidence on issues in contention constitute an abuse of court process and will be struck out.

Legislation cited (4)

Cases cited (5)

  • Yoakim Mwene Habyene v Attorney General (SCCA No. 4 of 1996)
  • Okwonga George and Another v Okello James Harrison (Miscellaneous Application No. 132 of 2021)
  • Sarah Nyakato v Lin Jeng Liang (Miscellaneous Application No. 316 of 2022)
  • Gaso Transport Services Limited v Marti Adala Obene (SCCA No. 4 of 1994)
  • Shell Uganda Ltd v C&A Tours and Travel Operators Uganda Ltd (Miscellaneous Application No. 955 of 2016)

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Ssebina_&_Others_v_Pearl_Development_Group_Ltd_&_Others_(Miscellaneous_Application_151_of_2023)_[2024]_UGHCLD_56_(4_March_2024)
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.