Wakilii

The Board of Governors Kings College Buddo v Kizito (Miscellaneous Application 2677 of 2024)

High Court · [2025] UGHCLD 5 · 2025 Application Granted AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Application for leave to amend written statement of defence and counterclaim arising from a pending civil suit
Decision
Application granted with directions for filing amended pleadings within 7 days

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 the application for leave to amend the written statement of defence and counterclaim. The amendment sought to correct a misdescription of plot numbers that should have been mentioned only in the counterclaim and not as part of the main suit subject matter. The court held that the proposed amendment would not change the cause of action, would avoid multiplicity of suits, and would not occasion prejudice to the respondent since the main suit was still in preliminary stages and had not been fixed for hearing.

Outcome

Application granted with directions for filing amended pleadings within 7 days

Facts

The respondent filed Civil Suit No. 762 of 2020 against the applicant concerning land. After filing its written statement of defence and counterclaim, the applicant discovered a misdescription of plots in its pleadings. The applicant had referenced plots 24 and 25 as part of the subject matter in the main suit, but these plots should only have been mentioned in the counterclaim as they were not part of the suit land in the plaint. The applicant sought unconditional leave to amend its pleadings to correct this misdescription and to plead more facts. The respondent opposed the application, contending that the applicant had no plausible defence, that the amendments would fundamentally change the defence and cause of action, and that the application was malafide and intended to delay proceedings. At the time of the application, the main suit was still in preliminary stages and had not been fixed for hearing.

Issues

  1. Whether the applicant can be granted unconditional leave to amend the written statement of defence and counterclaim in the main suit.

Orders

  • The applicant to serve and file the amended written statement of defence and counterclaim within 7 days from the date of this ruling.
  • Failure of which this court shall proceed with the written statement of defence and counter claim on record.
  • No order as to costs.

Rules and key headnotes

Civil Procedure — Amendment of Pleadings — Principles Governing Exercise of Discretion
The court may allow amendments to pleadings at any stage of proceedings where the amendment is necessary to determine the real questions in controversy, provided the amendment does not work an injustice to the other side that cannot be compensated by costs, avoids multiplicity of proceedings, is not made malafide, and is not prohibited by law.
Civil Procedure — Amendment of Pleadings — Correction of Misdescription of Subject Matter
An amendment to correct a misdescription of plot numbers in pleadings that does not change the cause of action and avoids multiplicity of suits will be allowed, particularly where the suit is still in preliminary stages and the amendment would not occasion prejudice to the other party.
Civil Procedure — Amendment of Pleadings — Timing and Prejudice
Where a suit is still in preliminary stages and has not been fixed for hearing, an amendment to pleadings is less likely to be prejudicial to the opposing party than if the hearing had already commenced.

Legislation cited (3)

Cases cited (1)

  • Gaso Transport Services (Bus) Ltd v Martin Adala Obene (Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 4 of 1994)

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

The_Board_of_Governors_Kings_College_Buddo_v_Kizito_(Miscellaneous_Application_2677_of_2024)_[2025]_UGHCLD_5_(20_January_2025)
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.