Wakilii

Ssengooba & 6 Ors v Stanbic Bank Ltd & 7 Ors (Miscelleneous Application No.0091 of 2018)

High Court · [2019] UGHCLD 22 · 2019 Application Dismissed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Interlocutory application for leave to amend pleadings arising from underlying civil suit
Decision
Application for leave to amend pleadings dismissed with costs to the respondents

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 pleadings because the applicants failed to attach a copy of the proposed amended plaint with the chamber summons. Without the proposed amendments, the court could not determine whether they satisfied the established principles for amendment, including that amendments should not work injustice, avoid multiplicity, not be malafide, and not substitute the cause of action. The subsequent filing of a draft amended plaint with rejoinder submissions was irregular and constituted an abuse of process.

Outcome

Application for leave to amend pleadings dismissed with costs to the respondents

Facts

The applicants brought an interlocutory application in Civil Suit No. 473 of 2017 seeking leave to amend their pleadings. The application was supported by an affidavit of John Fisher Sengooba stating that amendments were necessary because the filed written statement of defence required that the plaint first be amended to ensure the ends of justice. The applicants filed the chamber summons but did not attach a copy of the proposed amended plaint. Subsequently, the applicants filed a supplementary affidavit outside the scheduling time frame and attempted to file a draft amended plaint together with their submissions in rejoinder. The respondents opposed the application on grounds of incompetence.

Issues

  1. Whether the application for leave to amend pleadings was correctly filed by way of chamber summons.
  2. Whether the applicants satisfied the requirements for granting leave to amend pleadings.
  3. Whether the application was competent in the absence of a copy of the proposed amended plaint.

Orders

  • Application dismissed.
  • Costs awarded to the respondents.

Rules and key headnotes

Civil Procedure — Amendment of Pleadings — Procedural Requirements
An application for leave to amend pleadings must be accompanied by a copy of the proposed amended plaint so that the court can examine whether the amendments satisfy the established principles, including that they do not work injustice, avoid multiplicity of proceedings, are not made malafide, are not prohibited by law, and do not substitute the cause of action with a new one.
Civil Procedure — Amendment of Pleadings — Attachment of Draft Pleading
In the absence of a copy of the proposed amended plaint filed with the application for leave to amend, the court is left in the dark as to what the applicant intends to introduce and cannot properly assess whether the application meets the requirements for granting leave to amend.
Civil Procedure — Abuse of Process — Filing Documents Outside Scheduling Orders
Filing a supplementary affidavit outside the scheduling time frame allowed by court and smuggling a draft amended plaint on record together with submissions in rejoinder constitutes an irregular, malafide action that amounts to an abuse of court process and an ambush against the respondents.

Legislation cited (5)

  • Civil Procedure Rules O.6 r.19
  • Civil Procedure Rules O.6 r.31
  • Civil Procedure Act s.98
  • Civil Procedure Rules O.52 r.1(3)
  • Civil Procedure Rules O.5 r.7

Cases cited (2)

  • Gaso Transport Services (Bus) Ltd v Obene [1990-1994] IEA 88
  • Edward Kabugo Sentongo v Bank of Baroda (Miscellaneous Application No. 203 of 2007)

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Ssengooba_&_6_Ors_Vs_Stanbic_Bank_Ltd_&_7_Ors_(Miscelleneous_Application_No.0091_of_2018)_[2019]_UGHCLD_22_(16_April_2019)
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.