Uganda Petroleum Company v Haji Kayongo (Civil Suit No.504 of 1993)
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
Held that the oral application to amend pleadings to add a prayer for damages after close of plaintiff's evidence was refused. Although oral amendments are permissible under Order 6 Rule 18 and Rule 30 of the Civil Procedure Rules where no injustice results, the amendment was rejected because it would substantially change the character of the action from a summary suit for a liquidated debt to a claim including unliquidated damages, and the plaintiff had laid no ground for damages in the original pleadings.
Outcome
Application to amend pleadings dismissed with costs to the defendant
Facts
Uganda Petroleum Company Ltd filed a suit under summary procedure claiming UGX 6,893,225 for petroleum products supplied to the defendant between 1992 and March 1993. The defendant was granted leave to appear and defend and filed a written statement of defence. After the plaintiff closed its case having called three witnesses, plaintiff's counsel made an oral application to amend the pleadings to include a prayer for general damages, claiming the company had suffered time and financial embarrassment beyond the debt owed. The defendant opposed the application on grounds that no basis for damages had been pleaded and that merely amending the prayers without grounding the claim in the pleadings was improper.
Issues
- Whether the plaintiff should be granted leave to orally amend its pleadings to add a prayer for general damages after the close of the plaintiff's evidence.
Orders
- Application to amend the pleadings by inserting damages in the prayer is rejected.
- Costs of the application awarded to the defendant.
Rules and key headnotes
Legislation cited (4)
Cases cited (5)
- D.D. Baw Limited v G.S. Dider Singh (1961) EA 282
- Evarist Mugabi vs. Attorney General 1981 HCB page 65
- Kedi vs. Attorney General 1991 (HCB) page 100
- Lolgigh vs. Goscham 1891 ch 73,81
- Weldon vs. Neal 1887 19 QBD at page 394
Full judgment
The original judgment as reported. Read the original PDF before relying on any passage.