Wakilii

Umeme ltd v Onguko (Miscellaneous Application No. 275 of 2013)

High Court · [2013] UGHCCD 141 · 2013 Application Granted AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Interlocutory application for leave to amend written statement of defence arising from civil suit
Decision
Application granted with leave to amend written statement of defence within 14 days

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 leave to amend pleadings should be granted where the amendment assists the court and parties in determining the real questions in controversy and no injustice is occasioned to the opposite party. The court must determine parties' rights rather than punish them for procedural mistakes. The applicant's error in admitting a paragraph describing the defendant as involved in discrimination of the lame was a genuine mistake that could be corrected by amendment without prejudice to the respondent.

Outcome

Application granted with leave to amend written statement of defence within 14 days

Facts

The respondent, Onguko Jimmy, filed suit against Umeme Limited claiming unlawful termination of employment. In paragraph 2 of the plaint, the plaintiff described the defendant company as being involved in the supply of power and discrimination of lame in Uganda. The defendant admitted this paragraph in its written statement of defence. The plaintiff subsequently applied for judgment on admission under Order 13 rule 6 of the Civil Procedure Rules. Upon being served with that application, the defendant applied for leave to amend paragraph 2 of its written statement of defence, contending that counsel had not comprehended the phraseology "involved in the discrimination of lame" and had mistakenly admitted the paragraph. The defendant argued the admission was an error and the amendment was necessary to enable the court to determine the real issues in controversy.

Issues

  1. Whether leave should be granted to amend the second paragraph of the applicant's written statement of defence.

Orders

  • Application allowed.
  • An amended written statement of defence shall be filed within 14 days from the date hereof.
  • Costs in the main cause.

Rules and key headnotes

Civil Procedure — Amendment of Pleadings — Principles Governing Grant of Leave
Amendments to pleadings should be allowed at any stage of proceedings where the court is satisfied that the amendment will assist the court and parties to determine the real question in controversy and no injustice will be occasioned to the opposite party.
Civil Procedure — Amendment of Pleadings — Four Recognised Principles
Four principles govern the exercise of discretion to allow an amendment: (1) the amendment should not work injustice to the other side (an injury compensable by costs is not treated as injustice); (2) multiplicity of proceedings should be avoided and all amendments which avoid such multiplicity should be allowed; (3) an application made mala fide should not be granted; (4) no amendment should be allowed where it is expressly or impliedly prohibited by law.
Civil Procedure — Role of Court — Determining Rights Not Punishing Procedural Mistakes
The duty of the court is to determine the rights of parties and not to punish them for mistakes made in the conduct of their cases.

Legislation cited (10)

Cases cited (12)

  • Mulowoza & Brothers Ltd v N. Shah & Ltd (Civil Appeal No. 26 of 2010)
  • Gaso Transport (Bus) Ltd vs. Obene [1990-1994]
  • Cropper v Smith (1883) 26 Ch D 700
  • Musisi Gabriel v EDCO Ltd & Anor (Miscellaneous Application No. 386 of 2013)
  • Lissende vs. CAV Bosch Ltd: HL 1940
  • Ports Freight Services (U) Ltd v Julius Kamwany and others (1996) KALR 489
  • Kampala District Land Board and Others v National Housing and Construction Corporation (SCCA No. 2 of 2004)
  • Makula International Ltd. vs. Cardinal Nsubuga 1982 HCB
  • Re Christine Namatovu Tebajjukira 1992-93 HCB 85
  • Kampala City Council v Value Market Services Ltd (HCMA 8 of 2007)
  • Eastern Bakery v Castelino [1958] EA 462
  • Gaso Transport Services (Bus) Ltd vs. Obene [1990-1994] EA 88

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Umeme ltd v Onguko (Miscellaneous Application No. 275 of 2013) [2013] UGHCCD 141 (21 October 2013)
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.