Wakilii

Tumushabe Jovanisi v Post Bank (U) Ltd and Another (Miscellaneous Application 599 of 2023)

High Court · [2026] UGHC 109 · 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
Decision
Applicant granted leave to amend plaint with 15 days to file amended pleading

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 to include the correct description of the suit land as titled property. The court held that the amendment did not change the cause of action or prejudice the respondents, as it merely introduced facts discovered after filing that would enable proper determination of the real questions in controversy. The amendment was necessary to avoid multiplicity of proceedings and any prejudice could be compensated by costs.

Outcome

Applicant granted leave to amend plaint with 15 days to file amended pleading

Facts

The applicant filed a civil suit claiming ownership of unregistered plots of land and challenging a mortgage as void and fraudulent. During the pendency of the suit, she discovered that the suit land was actually registered titled land comprised in a lease certificate belonging to her late husband Issa Kato, who died in 1990. The applicant had legally married Issa Kato in 1974 and remained in possession of the matrimonial property after his death. The lease, obtained from the Uganda Land Commission for 49 years, was still subsisting. The certificate of title had been kept by one of the late husband's brothers. Upon discovering this information through family inquiries prompted by her lawyers, the applicant sought leave to amend the plaint to reflect the correct description of the suit land. The 1st respondent bank opposed the application, arguing that the amendment would introduce an entirely new cause of action and smuggle irregular documents into the court record.

Issues

  1. Whether the applicant should be granted leave to amend the plaint to include the correct description of the suit land as titled land.
  2. Whether the proposed amendment introduces a substantially different cause of action.
  3. Whether the proposed amendment would prejudice the respondents.

Orders

  • Application allowed.
  • Applicant granted leave to amend the plaint.
  • Applicant given 15 days from delivery of ruling to file the amended plaint.
  • Costs of the application to be in the cause.

Rules and key headnotes

Civil Procedure — Amendment of Pleadings — Principles for Grant of Leave
Amendments to pleadings sought before the 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 — Purpose and Scope
The court may at any stage of proceedings allow a party to 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 determining the real questions in controversy between the parties.
Civil Procedure — Amendment of Pleadings — New Facts Discovered After Filing
Where new material facts come to light after a suit has been filed but before hearing, seeking leave to amend the pleading to include such facts is appropriate and should be allowed if the amendment enables the court to determine the real matters in controversy without prejudicing the other party.
Civil Procedure — Amendment of Pleadings — Change of Cause of Action Distinguished from Additional Facts
An amendment that introduces additional facts discovered after filing does not constitute a change of cause of action where the applicant maintains the same prayers and the same fundamental claim, but merely provides fuller information to enable proper determination of the dispute.

Legislation cited (3)

Cases cited (10)

  • Cropper v Smith (1884) Ch D 700 (CA)
  • Okello Wilbert v Obel Ronald (High Court Miscellaneous Application No. 97 of 2020)
  • Eastern Bakery v Castelino (Civil Appeal No. 30 of 1958) [1958] EACA 147
  • Raleigh v Goschen (1898) 1 Ch 73
  • Muhamed Kasasa v Jasper Sirasi Bwogi (Court of Appeal Civil Appeal No. 42 of 2012)
  • Cobbold v Greenwich London Borough Council [1999] EWCA Civ 2074
  • Warren v Random House Group Ltd [2008] EWCA Civ 834
  • Mulowooza v Shah & Co Ltd (Civil Appeal No. 26 of 2010) [2011] UGSC 29
  • EDO MBM Technology Ltd v Campaign to Smash EDO [2006] EWHC 598 (QB)
  • Maridive & Oil Services (SAE) v CNA Insurance Co (Europe) Ltd [2002] EWCA Civ 369

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Tumushabe Jovanisi v Post Bank (U) Ltd and Another (Miscellaneous Application 599 of 2023) [2026] UGHC 109 (23 January 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.