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] UGHC 175 · 2026 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 arising from High Court Civil Suit No. HCT-17-LD-CS-0325-2022
Decision
Application for leave to amend plaint 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 the underlying civil suit. The court held that amendments to pleadings should be freely allowed before hearing where they enable the court to determine the real questions in controversy between the parties, provided the amendment does not cause injustice to the other side that cannot be compensated by costs. The court rejected the respondent's objections based on locus standi, delay, and alleged mala fides, finding that the proposed amendments did not introduce a new cause of action or prejudice the respondent, who would have an opportunity to file an amended defence.

Outcome

Application for leave to amend plaint granted with directions for filing of amended pleadings

Facts

The applicant, as administrator of the estate of the late Festo Kagodo, filed High Court Civil Suit No. HCT-17-LD-CS-0325-2022 against three defendants including the respondents herein, seeking declarations that the defendants falsified his signature and fraudulently acquired 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 that the first respondent falsified the applicant's signature and filled in mutation forms submitted to the Commissioner Land Registration to effect the transfer of the suit land. The first respondent opposed the application on grounds that it was incompetent, brought mala fide, not brought promptly, and that the applicant lacked locus standi as he held Letters of Administration for a small estate while the suit property was worth over 50,000,000 shillings.

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 for Grant of Leave
The court has unfettered jurisdiction under Order 6 rule 19 of the Civil Procedure Rules to grant leave to amend pleadings at any stage of proceedings for the purpose of determining the real questions in controversy between the parties. Amendments sought before hearing should be freely allowed if they can be made without injustice to the other side, and there is no injustice if the other side can be compensated by costs.
Civil Procedure — Amendment of Pleadings — Grounds for Refusal
Leave to amend pleadings will be refused where: (a) the amendment would cause injustice to the other party; (b) the application is made mala fide; (c) the amendment is expressly or impliedly prohibited by law; or (d) the amendment would change the action into one of a substantially different character or substitute one distinct cause of action for another.
Civil Procedure — Amendment of Pleadings — Timing and Promptness
The phrase 'any stage of the proceedings' in Order 6 rule 19 of the Civil Procedure Rules means any stage before judgment. An application for leave to amend is not barred merely because it was not brought promptly, provided it is brought before judgment.
Civil Procedure — Amendment of Pleadings — Right to Respond
Where a party is granted leave to amend pleadings, the opposite party is entitled under Order 6 rule 24 of the Civil Procedure Rules to 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 responding party.
Civil Procedure — Preliminary Objections — Locus Standi — Timing of Determination
Where a preliminary objection on locus standi is raised in opposition to an application for leave to amend, but the objection raises a question of law that requires determination on the merits, the court may defer resolution of the objection to the hearing of the main suit under Order 15 rule 2 of the Civil Procedure Rules, which permits the court to try issues of law first where both issues of law and fact arise.

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 175 (2 March 2026)
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.