[2023] UGHCLD 454
The court found that the amendment sought by the applicant was necessary to clarify the exact amount of compensation for vandalised property and did not alter the cause of action, which remained fraud and trespass to land. The case was still at a preliminary stage, and no injustice would be occasioned to the...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2023] UGHCLD 454
- Parties
- Applicant: Uganda Bus Operations Association Investments Ltd.; Applicant: Wilberforce Sekubwa; Respondent: Kampala Capital City Authority; Respondent: Francis Drake Lubega; Respondent: Tom Smith Semuwemba; Respondent: Manisul Matovu; Respondent: Commissioner Land Registration
- Court
- HC: Land Division (Uganda)
- Jurisdiction
- Uganda
- Case Number
- Miscellaneous Application 2098 of 2021
- Procedural Posture
- Miscellaneous Application / Ruling
- Outcome
- application allowed
- Judges
- Nassuna Matovu, J
- Legal Topics
- Amendment of Pleadings, Compensation for Vandalised Property, Fraud, Trespass to Land
- 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
Uganda Bus Operations Association Investments Ltd.
Applicant
Wilberforce Sekubwa
Applicant
Kampala Capital City Authority
Respondent
Francis Drake Lubega
Respondent
Tom Smith Semuwemba
Respondent
Manisul Matovu
Respondent
Commissioner Land Registration
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Miscellaneous Application / Ruling
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the applicant should be granted leave to amend the plaint in HCCS. No. 965 of 2020.
- 2 Whether the proposed amendment is necessary for proper adjudication of the case.
- 3 Whether the amendment will occasion injustice to the respondents.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that the amendment sought by the applicant was necessary to clarify the exact amount of compensation for vandalised property and did not alter the cause of action, which remained fraud and trespass to land. The case was still at a preliminary stage, and no injustice would be occasioned to the respondents, as they would have an opportunity to respond to the amended plaint. The court held that allowing the amendment would serve the ends of justice and facilitate the proper adjudication of the matter.
Court Disposition
application allowed
Orders
- Leave is granted to the applicant to amend the plaint in HCCS. No. 965 of 2020 within 15 days from the date of this ruling.
- Each party shall bear their own costs for this application.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
25 paragraphs
# THE REPUBLIC OF UGANDA IN THE HIGH COURT OF UGANDAAT KAMPAI-A I-AND DIVISION
# MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION NO. 2098 OF 2O2I
## ARISING FROM HCCS. NO.965 OP 2O2O
1. UGANDA BUS OPERATIONS
#### ASSOCIATION INYESTMENTS LTD.
2. WILBERFORCESSEKUBWA APPLICANTS
#### \. ERSUS
- 1. KAMPALACAPITAICITYAUTHORITY - 2. FRANCISDRAKELUBEGA - 3. 'IOM SMITH SEMUWEMBA - 4. MANISULMATOVU - 5. COMMISSIONERLAND REGISTRATION RESPONDENTS /DEFENDANTS
# BEFORE HON. LADY JUSTICE FLAYIA NASSUNA MATOYU
## RULING
This was an application for leave to amerrd plaint HCCS. No. 965 of 2020. Itwas brought under the provisions of S. 98 of the Civil Procedure Act and 0.6 r.19 of the Civii Procedute Rules.
It was brought by chamber summons that were supported by an affidavit sworn by the 2"d applicant. The grounds of the application were laid out in the said chamber summons and affidavit in support. Briefly the grounds were that
<sup>1</sup> 29
- a) That he had filed HCCS. No. 965 of 2020 by which he sought compensation from the respondents of his vandalised properties on the suit land. - b) However at the dme of filing the suit he could not ftace relevant documents showing the value of the vandalised properties. - c) He had since got the relevant documents and hence this application. - d) The amendment of the plaint is thus necessary to enable court to effectively adiudicate and settle the case between the parties.
The 2'd respondent filed an affidavit in reply by which he called upon the courr to dismiss this application with costs. Briefly he stated that the proposed amendments are not necessary for the determination of the case and they are only being sought as an afterthought after the applicant had seen the written statement of defence.
The other respondents did not file any affidavits in reply
The issue to be decided is whether the applicant should be granted leave to amend the plaint in HCCS. No. 965 of 2020.
Both parties frled written submissions which I have carefully studied.
After carefuliy studying the entire record of pleadings and proceedings I noted as follows:
- a) Undet 0.6 r. 19 of the Civil Procedure Rules, the court may at any stage allow a p^rty to amend his or her pleadings in such a manner and upon such terms as may be just for the purpose of determining the real questions in controversy berween thc parties. - b) HCCS. NO. 965 ol 2020 is stili in its preliminary stages of tdal. - c) The cause of action in the original plaint and the intended amended plaint remains unchanged i.e. fraud and trespass to land
<sup>2</sup> 3
- d) The intended amendment merely seeks dariSr on the exact amount of compensation sought and in my view this is necessary for proper adiudication of the case before court. - ") No injustice will be occasioned to the respondent/defendants because they will be given an opportuniry ro respond ro the amended plaint. - f) For ends of justice to be met in this case and for Lhe court to propedy adiudicate the matter it is just right and proper rhat the plaintiff should be granted leave to amend the plaint as requested. - g) The application is therefore hereby allowed and the plaintiff is hereby granted leave to amend the plaint in HCCS. No. 965 of 2020 and this should be done withifl 15 days from today. - h) Each party shall meet their costs for this application.
DATED at Kampala this ayof. <sup>23</sup>
FLAVIA NASSUNA MATOVU
JUDGE.