[2017] UGCommC 67

[2017] UGCommC 67

The court found that the applicant had already pleaded fraudulent misrepresentation and now sought only to introduce further particulars based on new evidence obtained from district local governments. The amendments were sought before the hearing and did not introduce a new cause of action. The court held that such amendments are necessary to determine the real questions in controversy and that no prejudice would be occasioned to the respondent, who could be compensated in costs if necessary. Therefore, the application for leave to amend was granted.

Citation
[2017] UGCommC 67
Parties
Applicant: Tri-Some Technical Services Ltd; Respondent: Olanzicon Services Limited
Court
Commercial Court of Uganda
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Judgment Date
8 June 2017
Case Number
Miscellaneous Application No. 333 of 2017
Procedural Posture
Miscellaneous Application / Ruling on Application for Leave to Amend Defence and Counterclaim
Outcome
application granted
Legal Topics
Amendment of Pleadings, Fraudulent Misrepresentation, Counterclaim Particulars, Rescission of Contract
Source Language
English
Civil Procedure Commercial and Corporate Amendment of Pleadings Fraudulent Misrepresentation Counterclaim Particulars Rescission of Contract

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 2 Authorities cited 9 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Tri-Some Technical Services Ltd

Applicant

Olanzicon Services Limited

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Miscellaneous Application / Ruling on Application for Leave to Amend Defence and Counterclaim

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the applicant should be granted leave to amend its defence and counterclaim to plead further particulars of fraudulent misrepresentation.
  2. 2 Whether the proposed amendments would prejudice the respondent.
  3. 3 Whether the amendments are necessary for determining the real questions in controversy between the parties.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the applicant had already pleaded fraudulent misrepresentation and now sought only to introduce further particulars based on new evidence obtained from district local governments. The amendments were sought before the hearing and did not introduce a new cause of action. The court held that such amendments are necessary to determine the real questions in controversy and that no prejudice would be occasioned to the respondent, who could be compensated in costs if necessary. Therefore, the application for leave to amend was granted.

Court Disposition

application granted

Orders

  • The applicant shall file an amended written statement of defence and counterclaim as proposed within 15 days from the date of the ruling.
  • The amended pleadings shall be served on the plaintiff, who may file any amended replies.