Wakilii

Ssemwanga and 4 Others v Nambalirwe and 4 Others (Miscellaneous Application 1800 of 2022)

High Court · [2022] UGHCLD 266 · 2022 Application Partly Allowed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Application for leave to amend plaint in pending civil suit
Decision
Application partly allowed with leave granted to substitute one party but amendments introducing a different cause of action refused

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 granted leave to amend the plaint to substitute the 5th respondent with the Commissioner for Land Registration, finding no prejudice to the respondents and that the amendment would enable full determination of all questions in controversy. However, the court declined to allow amendments to paragraphs 6, d, e, 8, 9, f and orders in f and h, holding that these amendments would introduce a different cause of action by abandoning the original trespass claim, which is not acceptable and would prejudice the respondents.

Outcome

Application partly allowed with leave granted to substitute one party but amendments introducing a different cause of action refused

Facts

The applicants filed a civil suit (CS No. 220 of 2021) against the respondents. After filing, new information arose that the applicants sought to include in their pleadings. The applicants brought this application seeking leave to amend their plaint on two grounds: first, to substitute the 5th defendant (Registrar of Titles) with the Commissioner for Land Registration; and second, to amend various paragraphs and orders in the plaint. The respondents opposed the application, arguing that the applicants had previously filed similar applications that were dismissed for want of prosecution, that the multiple applications were delay tactics made in bad faith, and that the sought amendments would introduce a new cause of action. The main suit concerned a trespass action, and the proposed amendments sought to change the prayers to include declarations of fraud and ownership of kibanja rights.

Issues

  1. Whether the applicants should be granted leave to amend their plaint to substitute the 5th respondent with the Commissioner for Land Registration.
  2. Whether the applicants should be granted leave to amend paragraphs 6, d, e, 8, 9, f and orders in f and h of their plaint.

Orders

  • The Applicant is granted leave to amend his plaint in Civil Suit No. 220 of 2021 to substitute the 5th respondent with Commissioner for Land Registration.
  • The Applicant shall file the amended plaint and serve the respondents by Monday, 21/11/2022.
  • The second prayer to amend paragraph 6, d, e, 8, 9, f and orders in f and h is not granted.
  • The costs of this application shall abide the outcome of the main suit.

Rules and key headnotes

Civil Procedure — Amendment of Pleadings — Substitution of Parties — Correct Party
Where an amendment seeks to substitute a party with the correct party who should properly be before the court, and the hearing is still ongoing, leave to amend should be granted if it will not prejudice the other party and will enable the court to fully and finally determine all questions in controversy between the parties.
Civil Procedure — Amendment of Pleadings — Introduction of New Cause of Action — Prohibition
The court shall not exercise its discretion to allow an amendment which has the effect of substituting one distinctive cause of action for another, as this would prejudice the opposing party.
Civil Procedure — Amendment of Pleadings — Principles Governing Exercise of Discretion
Amendments are allowed by courts so that the real question in controversy between the parties is determined and justice is administered without undue regard to technicalities, provided the amendment does not work an injustice to the other side, avoids multiplicity of proceedings, is not made mala fide, and is not prohibited by law.

Legislation cited (4)

Cases cited (3)

  • Gaso Transport Services (Bus) Ltd v Obene (1990-1994) EA 88
  • Mulowooza & Brothers Ltd v Shah & Co Ltd (Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 26 of 2010)
  • Nicholas Serunkuma Ssewagudde and 2 Others v Namasole Namusoke Namatovu Veronica (High Court Miscellaneous Application No. 1307 of 2016)

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Ssemwanga_and_4_Others_v_Nambalirwe_and_4_Others_(Miscellaneous_Application_1800_of_2022)_[2022]_UGHCLD_266_(18_November_2022)
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.