Wakilii

Zziwa and 3 Others v Ssembatya and Another (Civil Miscellaneous Application No. 142 of 2019)

High Court · [2021] UGHCLD 138 · 2021 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 counterclaim arising from Civil Suit No. 363 of 2017
Decision
Application granted; parties directed to file amended pleadings and trial bundles in preparation for scheduling

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 application for leave to amend the defence and counterclaim was granted. The court applied the principles governing amendment of pleadings, finding that the applicants had discovered through a survey that they were in possession of a different plot than initially stated in their defence. Although the amendment introduced new facts and was necessitated by the applicants' failure to verify details before filing, the prejudice to the respondents could be compensated by costs. The court exercised discretion to allow the amendment, as multiplicity of proceedings should be avoided and injustice compensable by costs is not a bar to amendment.

Outcome

Application granted; parties directed to file amended pleadings and trial bundles in preparation for scheduling

Facts

The applicants filed a written statement of defence and counterclaim in Civil Suit No. 363 of 2017, initially describing the land they claimed to occupy as Kyadondo Block 210, plot 1640 at Kyebando. The 1st applicant had misinformed counsel during interviews that this was the land in respect of which the 1st, 2nd and 4th applicants had been in lawful uncontested possession for 15 years. The applicants' firm subsequently engaged surveyors who confirmed that the land actually occupied by the applicants was comprised in Kyadondo/Kawempe Division Block 210 plot 1985 at Kyebando, not plot 1640. The survey report showed that the applicants' structures including rental units and shops were located on plot 1985. The respondents had purchased plot 1985 from Nanyonga Hadijjah. The respondents opposed the amendment, arguing that the suit land was properly described in the plaint as Kawempe Division Block 210, plot 1985, that the applicants were trying to improve their inadequate defence, and that both plots 1640 and 1985 exist as distinct plots.

Issues

  1. Whether the applicants should be granted leave to amend their written statement of defence and counterclaim to correct a misdescription of the subject matter.

Orders

  • Application allowed.
  • The applicants are granted leave to amend their written statement of defence and counterclaim.
  • The respondents/plaintiffs are to be served with an amended copy of the defence and counterclaim within two weeks upon receiving the amended pleadings.
  • The plaintiffs are to serve and file their trial bundle and notes for scheduling within seven days after receiving the amended pleadings.
  • The defendants are to serve their trial bundle and final input for the scheduling notes within seven days after receiving the court documents from the respondents.
  • Date of scheduling to be appointed by court after delivery of the ruling.
  • Costs in the cause.

Rules and key headnotes

Civil Procedure — Amendment of Pleadings — Discretion of Court — Principles Governing Exercise of Discretion
Under Order 6 rule 19 of the Civil Procedure Rules, the court has discretion to allow amendment of pleadings at any time, and an amendment should not be denied unless it is done mala fide or occasions prejudice or injustice to the other party which cannot be compensated by an award of costs.
Civil Procedure — Amendment of Pleadings — Four Principles Governing Exercise of Discretion
The four principles governing the exercise of discretion in allowing amendments are: (1) the amendment should not work injustice to the other side, and injury compensable by costs is not treated as injustice; (2) multiplicity of proceedings should be avoided; (3) an application made mala fide should not be granted; and (4) no amendment should be allowed where it is expressly or impliedly prohibited by law.
Civil Procedure — Amendment of Pleadings — Limits on Amendment — Substitution of Cause of Action
An amendment that substitutes one distinct cause of action for another, or changes the subject matter of the suit, or would change the action into one of a substantially different character should not be allowed.

Legislation cited (2)

Cases cited (3)

  • Eastern Bakery v Castelino [1958] EA 462
  • Gaso Transport Services Ltd v Martin Adala Obene (Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 4 of 1994)
  • Wamayji v Interfreight Forwarders (U) Ltd [1990] II KALR 67

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Zziwa_and_3_Others_v_Ssembatya_and_Another_(Civil_Miscellaneous_Application_No._142_of_2019)_[2021]_UGHCLD_138_(29_September_2021)
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.