Wakilii

Transami U) Ltd V Transocean (U) Ltd (Civil Suit No. 145 of 1987)

High Court · [1992] UGHC 1 · 1992 Preliminary Objection Dismissed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Ruling on preliminary objection to application for leave to amend plaint
Decision
Preliminary objection dismissed; application for leave to amend to proceed to substantive hearing

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 overruled the preliminary objection to an application for leave to amend the plaint. The defendant objected that the proposed amendment was brought mala fide to defeat a pending appeal and existing limitation defence. The court held that mala fide is a question of fact requiring evidence, and the applicant's supporting affidavit showed no mala fide conduct. The court declined to address substantive grounds (limitation defence, introduction of new cause of action) at the preliminary objection stage.

Outcome

Preliminary objection dismissed; application for leave to amend to proceed to substantive hearing

Facts

The plaintiff brought an application by Chamber Summons under O.6 rr.18 and 30 of the Civil Procedure Rules seeking leave to amend the plaint in Civil Suit No. 145 of 1987. The defendant raised a preliminary objection contending the application was brought mala fide to render useless the defendant's pending appeal on limitation. The defendant argued that the original plaint stated the cause of action occurred in 1974, whereas the proposed amendment alleged it occurred in 1986, thus circumventing the limitation defence. The plaintiff responded that the application was properly brought under O.6 r.18, that no valid appeal was pending due to non-compliance with Court of Appeal Rules r.76, and that the proposed amendment did not introduce a new case or cause of action as the prayers remained the same.

Issues

  1. Whether the plaintiff/applicant acted mala fide in bringing the application for leave to amend the plaint aimed at rendering the defendant's pending appeal useless.

Orders

  • Preliminary objection overruled.

Rules and key headnotes

Civil Procedure — Amendment of Pleadings — Preliminary Objection — Burden of Proof of Mala Fides
Whether a party seeking leave to amend pleadings acted mala fide is a question of fact which can only be established by evidence, and an objection on grounds of mala fides must be supported by contrary evidence to displace the applicant's affidavit evidence.
Civil Procedure — Preliminary Objection — Scope — Substantive Grounds
On a preliminary objection to an application for leave to amend, the court will not concern itself with substantive issues such as whether the amendment defeats an existing limitation defence or introduces a new cause of action, as these matters go to the substance of the application and should be determined at the substantive hearing.

Legislation cited (3)

  • Civil Procedure Rules O.6 r.18
  • Civil Procedure Rules O.6 r.30
  • Court of Appeal Rules 1972 r.76

Cases cited (1)

  • Nzirane v Matiya Lukwago (1971) HCB 75

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Transami U) Ltd V Transocean (U) Ltd (Civil Suit No. 145 of 1987) [1992] UGHC 1 (14 February 1992)
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.