Wakilii

Ssesinde Ronald (Administrator of the estate of the late Festo Kagodo) v Muyingo Salim and Another (Miscellaneous Application 335 of 2024)

High Court · [2026] UGHCLD 335 Application Granted AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Application for leave to amend plaint in pending civil suit before the High Court Land Division
Decision
Application granted with directions for filing of amended pleadings

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 applicant leave to amend the plaint in a pending land suit. The court held that amendments to pleadings sought before hearing should be freely allowed if they do not cause injustice to the other side and enable the court to determine the real questions in controversy between the parties. The court rejected the respondent's objections concerning locus standi, delay, and alleged mala fides, finding that these matters could be resolved at trial and that the respondent would have an opportunity to file an amended defence.

Outcome

Application granted with directions for filing of amended pleadings

Facts

The applicant, administrator of the estate of the late Festo Kagodo, filed a civil suit (HCT-17-LD-CS-0325-2022) against three defendants alleging fraud and forgery in relation to land comprised in East Buganda, Bulemezi Block 385 plots 75 and 76. The applicant subsequently withdrew the suit against one defendant, Kamya Christian Semata. The applicant then brought this application seeking leave to amend the plaint to introduce additional particulars of fraud, specifically allegations that the 1st respondent falsified the applicant's signature and submitted fraudulent mutation forms to the 2nd respondent (Commissioner Land Registration) to effect an unlawful transfer of the suit property. The 1st respondent opposed the application, arguing that it was incompetent, brought mala fide, not brought promptly (two years after the main suit was filed), and that the applicant lacked locus standi because he held Letters of Administration for a small estate while the suit property exceeded UGX 50,000,000 in value.

Issues

  1. Whether the applicant should be granted leave to amend his plaint in HCT-17-LD-CS-0325-2022.
  2. What remedies are available.

Orders

  • Application allowed.
  • The applicant shall amend his plaint and file and serve the same within 15 days from the date of this order.
  • The respondents shall file their amended Written Statements of Defence within 15 days from the date of service of the amended plaint.
  • The applicant shall file a reply to the written statement of defence (if any) within 7 days from the date of service of the Written Statements of Defence.
  • Costs shall be in the main cause.

Rules and key headnotes

Civil Procedure — Amendment of Pleadings — Principles Governing Grant of Leave
Under Order 6 rule 19 of the Civil Procedure Rules, the court may at any stage of the proceedings allow either party to amend pleadings as may be necessary for determining the real questions in controversy between the parties. Amendments should be freely allowed if they do not cause injustice to the other side that cannot be compensated by costs.
Civil Procedure — Amendment of Pleadings — Timing and Promptness
The phrase 'at any stage of the proceedings' in Order 6 rule 19 has been interpreted to mean any stage before judgment. An application for amendment is not barred merely because it was not brought promptly, provided it is brought before judgment.
Civil Procedure — Amendment of Pleadings — Objections Based on Merits of Main Suit
Where a respondent's opposition to an application for amendment consists primarily of arguments on the merits of the main suit (such as locus standi or defences to the claim), those matters are properly determined at trial rather than as grounds to refuse leave to amend, particularly where the opposite party will have an opportunity to file an amended pleading in response.
Civil Procedure — Amendment of Pleadings — Right to Reply to Amended Pleadings
Under Order 6 rule 24 of the Civil Procedure Rules, where any party has amended pleadings, the opposite party shall plead to the amended pleading or amend their own pleading within the time they then have to plead, or within 15 days of service of the amendment, whichever expires last. This ensures no prejudice is suffered by the opposite party.

Legislation cited (8)

Cases cited (16)

  • Space Marketing (U) Ltd v Equifax Uganda Ltd and 4 Others (Miscellaneous Application No. 969 of 2020)
  • Gaso Transport Services Ltd v Martin Adala Obene (Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 4 of 1994)
  • Banco Arabe Espagnol (2003) 2 ULR 577
  • Eastern Bakery Vs Castelino (1958) EA 467
  • Tildesley vs Harper (1878), 10 Ch.D 393
  • Clarapede Vs Commercial Union Association (1883), 32 W.R 262
  • Budding Vs Murdoch (1875) I Ch.D 42
  • Ma shwe Mya Vs Maung Po Hnaung (1927), 48 I.A. 274
  • Raleigh vs Goschen (1898) 73, 87
  • Weldon vs Neal (1887), 19 Q.B.D 394
  • Hilton Vs. Sutton Steam Laundry (1946) K.B 65
  • Simbamanyo Estates Limited v Equity Bank Uganda Ltd and 2 Others (Miscellaneous Application No. 1414 of 2022)
  • Assa Abloy (U) Ltd v John Mboizi (Miscellaneous Application No. 784 of 2021)
  • Sarah Nyakato v Lin Jeng Liang and 5 Others (Miscellaneous Application No. 315 of 2022)
  • Kibuuka Emmanuel and Another v Nanyanzi Margaret (Miscellaneous Application No. 3745 of 2023)
  • Mulowooza & Bros Ltd v N. Shah & Co. Ltd (Court of Appeal Civil Appeal No. 25 of 2010)

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Ssesinde Ronald (Administrator of the estate of the late Festo Kagodo) v Muyingo Salim and Another (Miscellaneous Application 335 of 2024) [2026] UGHC
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.