Wakilii

The Kabaka of Buganda and Anor v Magema (Civil Miscellaneous Application No. 1301 of 2020)

High Court · [2021] UGHCLD 8 · 2021 Application Dismissed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Application for leave to amend written statement of defence arising from civil suit
Decision
Application dismissed with costs to the respondent

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 the written statement of defence. The proposed amendments introduced a completely new set of facts and defences that shifted the applicants' position from their original pleadings. Such amendments would prejudice the respondent by requiring him to respond to new matters that could only be addressed through further amendment of the plaint, which is not permissible. The proposed amendments did not meet the legal standard for granting leave to amend.

Outcome

Application dismissed with costs to the respondent

Facts

The applicants sought leave to amend their written statement of defence dated 15th December 2015 in Civil Suit No. 555 of 2015. The underlying suit concerned ownership of land comprised in LRV 456 folio 1 Kyadondo Block 8 Plot 117, 1118 and 1119 at Kakeeka Mengo. The applicants argued that the proposed amendments provided detailed facts that were only partially stated in the original defence. The respondent opposed the application, arguing that the proposed amendments introduced a completely new set of defences, contradicted positions agreed at scheduling, and were made in bad faith. The respondent also raised concerns about lack of proper instructions to the applicants' advocates.

Issues

  1. Whether leave should be granted to the applicants to amend their written statement of defence filed on 15th December 2015.

Orders

  • Application for leave to amend the written statement of defence dismissed.
  • Costs awarded to the respondent.

Rules and key headnotes

Civil Procedure — Amendment of Pleadings — Written Statement of Defence — Principles for Grant of Leave
Leave to amend a written statement of defence may be granted at any stage of the pleadings where necessary to determine the real questions in controversy between the parties, provided the amendment does not occasion injustice to the opposite party, is made in good faith, and is not prohibited by law.
Civil Procedure — Amendment of Pleadings — Introduction of New Facts — Prejudice to Opposite Party
An amendment that introduces a completely new set of facts and defences which fundamentally shifts the defendant's position from the original pleadings will be refused where it prejudices the plaintiff by requiring the plaintiff to amend the plaint to respond to the new matters, which is not permissible.
Civil Procedure — Amendment of Pleadings — Introduction of New Cause of Action — Prohibition
An amendment that amounts to introducing a whole new cause of action is unlawful and will not be permitted.

Legislation cited (5)

  • Civil Procedure Act s.98
  • Civil Procedure Rules O.6 r.19
  • Civil Procedure Rules O.6 r.31
  • Civil Procedure Rules O.51 r.6
  • Advocates (Professional Conduct) Regulations Regulation 2(1)

Cases cited (4)

  • Gaso Transport Services (Bus) Ltd v Martin Adala Obene (Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 04 of 1994)
  • Mulowooza & Brothers v Shah (Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 26 of 2010)
  • Eastern Bakery v Castelino (1958) EA 451
  • Huawei Technologies (U) Ltd v Evepeak Consults & Technical Services Ltd (High Court Miscellaneous Application No. 189 of 2011)

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

The_Kabaka_of_Buganda_and_Anor_v_Magema_(Civil_Miscellaneous_Application_No._1301_of_2020)_[2021]_UGHCLD_8_(29_January_2021)
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.