Wakilii

Zhang Jianming and Others v Wang Qing Guo (Miscellaneous Application No. 2639 of 2025)

High Court · [2026] UGCOMMC 152 · 2026 Application Granted AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Application for leave to amend written statement of defence and include a counterclaim in pending civil suit
Decision
Application granted with directions for filing amended pleadings within specified timelines

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 applicants leave to amend their written statement of defence and include a counterclaim. The court held that amendments should be freely allowed at the preliminary stage where they enable determination of the real questions in controversy, avoid multiplicity of suits, and cause no injustice that cannot be compensated by costs. The proposed amendment did not introduce a new cause of action but addressed allegations of fraud relating to share transfers already pleaded in the main suit.

Outcome

Application granted with directions for filing amended pleadings within specified timelines

Facts

The applicants sought leave to amend their written statement of defence in Civil Suit No. 1440 of 2024 and include a counterclaim. The underlying suit concerned 490 shares in Lydia Home Textiles (U) Limited which the respondent claimed were fraudulently transferred. The applicants contended that a judgment from the Shouguang City People's Court in China had resolved the dispute over the shares, finding that funds advanced by the respondent were loans, not equity investments, and that the respondent had denied signing share transfer agreements in those proceedings. The applicants argued the amendment was necessary to address the respondent's contradictory positions across jurisdictions. The respondent opposed, arguing the Chinese proceedings concerned different parties and reliefs, that the application was brought in bad faith and with unreasonable delay, and that it would introduce new causes of action. The main suit had not yet proceeded to hearing on the merits.

Issues

  1. Whether the applicants should be granted leave to amend their written statement of defence in Civil Suit No. 1440 of 2024 and include a counterclaim?
  2. What remedies are available to the parties?

Orders

  • Leave to amend the applicants' written statement of defence in Civil Suit No. 1440 of 2024 and include a counterclaim is hereby granted.
  • The applicants shall file their amended written statement of defence and serve the same on the respondent within 7 days from the date of this ruling.
  • The respondent shall file his amended reply within 7 days from the date of service of the amended written statement of defence and counterclaim.
  • Costs shall be in the cause.

Rules and key headnotes

Amendment of Pleadings — Discretion to Grant Leave — Principles
The court may at any stage of proceedings allow a party to amend pleadings where necessary to determine the real questions in controversy between the parties, provided the amendment does not work injustice to the other side, is not made mala fide, avoids multiplicity of proceedings, and is not prohibited by law.
Amendment of Pleadings — Counterclaim — Filing After Time Limit
A counterclaim should ordinarily be filed with the written statement of defence within 15 days from receipt of summons. Where not filed within time, it may be filed after an application for enlargement of time under Order 51 rule 6 of the Civil Procedure Rules upon showing good cause. The court will grant leave to file a counterclaim by way of amendment where there is merit in the counterclaim and the main suit has not yet commenced hearing.
Amendment of Pleadings — Delay — Effect of Advocate's Mistake
The mistakes of a party's advocate should not be visited on the party. The court should not punish applicants for the fact that their advocates took considerable time to file an application for amendment of pleadings.
Amendment of Pleadings — New Cause of Action — Test
An amendment that does not introduce new facts but addresses allegations already pleaded in the plaint does not raise a new cause of action. Where an amendment relates to the same subject matter and parties as the main suit, it will be allowed at the preliminary stage before hearing has substantially commenced.
Amendment of Pleadings — Injustice — Compensation by Costs
An injury that can be compensated for by way of costs is not treated as an injustice for purposes of refusing leave to amend pleadings. Where the applicant may lose in the main suit and be awarded costs, any loss arising from the amendment will be remedied.

Legislation cited (7)

Cases cited (15)

  • Gaso Transport Services Limited v Martin Adala Obene (Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 4 of 1994)
  • Mulowooza & Bros Ltd v N. Shah & Co. Ltd (Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 26 of 2010)
  • Banco Arabe Espanol v Bank of Uganda (Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 8 of 1998)
  • Omumbejja Namusisi Faridah Naluwembe v Makerere University (High Court Miscellaneous Application No. 1199 of 2013)
  • Jesse Kasaija & 254 Others v Kabakumba Labwoni Masiko & Another (High Court Miscellaneous Application No. 164 of 2022)
  • Charles Kamudda v F.X Mubuuke (Miscellaneous Application No. 230 of 2022)
  • Mukalazi Samuel Balukusa v Nansubuga Hanifah (Miscellaneous Application No. 126 of 2025)
  • Mwangi & another vs Kassamali & 2 others Commercial Case E896/2021
  • Mohammad B. Kasasa v Jasphar Buyonga Sirasi Bwogi (Civil Appeal No. 42 of 2008)
  • Cropper vs Smith (1884) 26 Ch. D. 700 (CA)
  • Harji Kasan Monjee Ragha Jee (Civil Appeal No. 17 of 1942)
  • Eastern Bakery vs Castelino
  • Kasozi J and Another v Registered Trustees of Kampala Archdiocese (Miscellaneous Application No. 905 of 2021)
  • James Busonga v Victory Christian Center (Miscellaneous Application No. 466 of 2024)
  • Dr. Wasswa Joseph Matovu v Makerere University & 2 Others (Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 11 of 2021)

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Zhang Jianming and Others v Wang Qing Guo (Miscellaneous Application No. 2639 of 2025) [2026] UGCommC 152 (25 March 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.