Wakilii

Tri-Some Technical Services Ltd v Olanzicon Services Limited (Miscellaneous Application No. 333 of 2017)

High Court · [2017] UGCOMMC 67 · 2017 Application Granted AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Interlocutory application for leave to amend defence and counterclaim arising from pending civil suit
Decision
Application allowed; applicant granted leave to amend defence and counterclaim with further particulars of fraudulent misrepresentation

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 applicant leave to amend its defence and counterclaim under Order 6 Rule 19 of the Civil Procedure Rules. Amendments sought before hearing should be freely allowed if made without injustice to the other side. The applicant had already pleaded fraudulent misrepresentation and sought only to introduce further particulars obtained from district local governments after the original filing. No prejudice resulted since the respondent could be compensated in costs.

Outcome

Application allowed; applicant granted leave to amend defence and counterclaim with further particulars of fraudulent misrepresentation

Facts

The applicant applied for leave to amend its defence and counterclaim in Civil Suit No. 539 of 2014 to plead further particulars of the respondent's alleged fraudulent misrepresentation. At the time of filing the original defence, the applicant was aware of the alleged misrepresentation but lacked full particulars. Subsequently, the applicant wrote to various district local governments where the respondent had claimed to have undertaken road construction works. The local authorities responded disowning documents the respondent had presented to induce the applicant into entering a subcontract. Bushenyi, Kabale, and Mityana district local governments confirmed that certificates of completion presented by the respondent did not belong to them and that persons who had signed such certificates were not their employees. The applicant sought to include these particulars in the amended pleadings and to add a prayer for rescission of the subcontract.

Issues

  1. Whether the applicant should be granted leave to amend its defence and counterclaim to include further particulars of fraudulent misrepresentation.

Orders

  • Application granted with costs in the cause.
  • Applicant to file amended written statement of defence and counterclaim within 15 days from date of ruling.
  • Applicant to serve amended pleadings on the plaintiff.
  • Plaintiff entitled to file amended replies to the amended pleadings.

Rules and key headnotes

Civil Procedure — Amendment of Pleadings — Timing of Application
Amendments to pleadings sought before the hearing of a matter 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 in costs.
Civil Procedure — Amendment of Pleadings — Purpose and Scope under Order 6 Rule 19
Under Order 6 Rule 19 of the Civil Procedure Rules, the court may at any stage of proceedings allow a party to alter or amend pleadings in such manner and on such terms as may be just, and all such amendments shall be made as may be necessary for the purpose of determining the real questions in controversy between the parties.
Civil Procedure — Amendment of Pleadings — Introduction of Further Particulars
Where a party has already pleaded a cause of action such as fraudulent misrepresentation and seeks only to introduce further and better particulars obtained subsequent to the original filing, no prejudice results to the opposing party and the amendment should be allowed.

Legislation cited (1)

Cases cited (8)

  • Mulowooza & Brothers Limited v N Shah (Civil Appeal No. 26 of 2010)
  • Gaso Transport Services (Bus) Ltd v Obene [1990-1994] 1 EA 88
  • McCoy v Allibhai (1938) 5 EACA 70
  • Jupiter Insurance v Hasham [1960] EA 562
  • Jami Properties v Dar-es-Salaam [1966] EA 281
  • Eastern Bakery v Castalino [1958] EA 461
  • British Indian General Insurance Company v Parma (GM) and Company [1966] EA 172
  • Kara v Makam (1950) 17 EACA 16

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Tri-Some Technical Services Ltd v Olanzicon Services Limited (Miscellaneous Application No. 333 of 2017) [2017] UGCommC 67 (8 June 2017)
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.