[2023] UGHCLD 193
The court found that the proposed amendments would enable it to determine the real questions in controversy between the parties. The applicant demonstrated that relevant facts and reliefs were omitted and that new facts have emerged. The respondent failed to show that the amendments would prejudice her interests....
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2023] UGHCLD 193
- Parties
- Applicant: Khawa Najjuko; Respondent: Rita Lubowa Lwanga (Administratrix of the estate of the late Xavier Lwanga Francis)
- Court
- HC: Land Division (Uganda)
- Jurisdiction
- Uganda
- Case Number
- Miscellaneous Application 1072 of 2022
- Procedural Posture
- Miscellaneous Application / Ruling
- Outcome
- application_allowed
- Judges
- Basaza, J
- Legal Topics
- Amendment of Pleadings, Leave to Amend, Multiplicity of Suits, Prejudice to Party
- Source Language
- en
Source-derived case record
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
Khawa Najjuko
Applicant
Rita Lubowa Lwanga (Administratrix of the estate of the late Xavier Lwanga Francis)
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Miscellaneous Application / Ruling
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether leave should be granted to the applicant to amend the plaint in the Head Suit.
- 2 Whether the proposed amendments would prejudice the respondent.
- 3 Whether the amendment is necessary to determine the real questions in controversy.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that the proposed amendments would enable it to determine the real questions in controversy between the parties. The applicant demonstrated that relevant facts and reliefs were omitted and that new facts have emerged. The respondent failed to show that the amendments would prejudice her interests. The court applied the principle that amendments should be freely allowed to promote justice unless they cause irremediable injustice or introduce a distinct cause of action. Accordingly, leave to amend was granted, with the amendment to be made within ten days and costs to abide the outcome of the Head Suit.
Court Disposition
application_allowed
Orders
- Leave is granted to the applicant to amend the plaint in the Head Suit C. S NO. 803 of 2018.
- The proposed amendment shall be made within ten (10) days from the date of this ruling.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
46 paragraphs
# THE REPUBLIC OF UGANDA
# IN THE HIGH COURT OF UGA NDAAT KAMPALA
#### LAND DIVISIO
# MISCETLEANEOUS APPLICATION NO. 1072 OF 2022 (ARTSTNG FROM CrVtL SUrr N0.0803 0F 2018)
KHAWA NAJJUKO APPLICANT
V
#### RITA LUBOWA LWANGA
RESPONDENT
(Administratrix of the estate of the late Xavier Lwanga Francis)
## BEFORE: - HON. IADY JUSTICE P. BASAZA- WASSWA
#### RULING
Representation:
Mr. Kikomeko Swaib for the Applicant
M r. Semanda Ben Tziwa for the Respondent
#### lntroduction:
tll This ruling is in respect of a miscellaneous application brought by Chamber Summons under Section 33 of the Judicature Actl, Section 98 of the Civi! Procedure Act2 and Order 6 Rule 19 of The Civil Procedure Rules3 for orders that; a) Leave be granted to the applicant to amend the plaint in the Head Suit C. S N0.
803 of 2018.
It {fuh1, ^r^^",-{ '{i
- <sup>I</sup>Cap <sup>13</sup> - <sup>1</sup>Cap 7l - <sup>r</sup>s.l 7t-l
Page I of4
- b) Leave be granted to the applicant to incorporate new facts and reliefs in the plaint in the Head Suit. - c) Cost for this application be provided for. - [2] The application is supported by the affidavit of Ms. Najjuko (the Applicant) and the grounds set out therein are; - i) That at the time of filing the Head suit several relevant facts were left out. - ii) That important and new facts have been discovered by the applicant th,:t are relevant in determining the Head Suit. - iii) That there are several reliefs which were left out at the time of filing the Head Suit. - iv) That the amendment of the Head suit will not prejudice the interests of the Respondent and shall avoid a multi.plicity of suits. - t3l rhe Respondent- Ms. Lwanga filed an affidavit in reply opposing the applicatior.. She stated that the application is incompetent, an abuse of court process and brought in bad faith, and that, if granted an injustice shall be occasioned to the Respondent.
## bmi oun
[4] This Court issued a schedule for filing written sub.missions which has not been adhered to. whereas Learned Counsel for the applicant filed written submissions, Learned Counsel for the Respondent did not file a reply to the written submissions of the Applicant.
on the whole, I have duly considered the arguments for and against this application. For brevity, I will not reproduce the arguments here, I will only refer to them where neceSsary
lt\*st"^lw^ttsh Page 2 of <sup>4</sup>
## Anal is bv th is ourt
[5] Order 6 Rule 19 of the Civil Procedure Rules provides that;
,,The court moy ot ony stoge of the proceedings allow either porty to olter or omend his pteodings in such manner ond on such terms as moy be iust' ond olL such amendments shatl be made, as moy be necessory for 'the purpose of determining the real questions in controversy between the porties "
[6] The law on amendment of pleadings was elucidated in Mulowooza & Brothers Vs N. Shah & Co. Ltda citing Eastern Bakery v. Castelinos that;
,,omendments are allowed by courts so thot the reol question in controversy between the porties is determined and iustice is administered without undue regord to technicalities tn accordonce with Article 126(2) (e) of the Constitution' Therefore, ifoplointiffappLiesforLeovetoamendhispteodings,couttsshouldintheinterest ofpromotingjustice,freelyaLlowhimtodosounlessthiswouLdcauseoninjustice to the opposite porty which connot be compensoted for by an oward of costs' or unless the omendment would introduce a distinct couse of oction in pLace of the originol couse.';
[7] Having duly considered the grounds of this application and the proposed amendments, lfind that the proposed amendments shall enable court to determine the real questions in controversy between the parties'
<sup>I</sup>also find that the Respondent has failed to show that the proposed amendnrents shall be of Prejudice to her.
ikg,hl^J rq?"
4(Civil Appeal 26of2010) [201 1] UGSC 112
t 1958 EA P <sup>461</sup>
Page 3 of ,l
## Cou
[B] ln the result, the application is allowed, in the following terms;
- a) Leave is granted to the Applicant to amend the plaint in the Head Suit C. S NO. 803 of 2018. - b) The proposed amendment shall be made within Ten (10) days from the date of this Ruling. - c) Costs of this application shall abide the outcome of the Head Suit.
lso order,
W<^t. Jil \*^r-,.1 '\?
# P. BASAZA - WASSWA
JUDGE
July 10,2023
Ruling delivered electronically on the Judiciary ECCMIS system and by email to the parties.
Page 4 of4