Kasasira Mutabazi and 5 Others v Kiwanuka Wakabi and Another (miscellaneous Application no.1127/2025) [2025] UGHCLD 114 (27 June 2025)

# THE REPUBLIC OF UGANDA

# IN THE HIGH COURT OF UGANDA AT KAMPALA

## **LAND DIVISION**

# **MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION NO. 1127 OF 2025**

(ARISING FROM HIGH COURT Civil SUIT NO. 0685 OF 2022)

- 1. KASASIRA MOSES MUTABAZI - 2. MUTABAZI NIGHT - 3. NABWANIKA HARRIET - 4. MUTABAZI JOANITA - 5. MUSISI JOHN BOSCO - 6. WASSWA **MARTIN .....................................**

**SEMPALA**

#### **VERSUS**

1. KIWANUKA WAKABI ANTHONY 2. **BUGEMA UNIVERSITY:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::RESPONDENTS**

**BEFORE LADY JUSTICE CHRISTINE KAAHWA.**

### RULING.

#### **The application.**

This application is brought by way of Chamber Summons under sections 33 and 39 of the Judicature Act, Cap 16, Section 98 of the Civil Procedure Act, Cap 282 and Order 6 rules 19 & 31 of the Civil Procedure Rules S.1 No.71-1(CPR).

The application seeks orders that; leave be granted to the applicants to amend the plaint; the applicant be allowed to add the $7<sup>th</sup>$ and $8<sup>th</sup>$ respondents to their

K-106/2005

$\mathbf{1}$

plaint as defendants in Civil Suit No.90 of 2019 and that costs of the application be provided for.

The additional grounds enumerated in the application and the affidavit in support of the application deposed Kasisira Moses Mutabazi on his own behalf and on behalf of the other five respondents.

In summary, the case of the Applicants is that after filing the suit the Plaintiffs found out new events that necessitate amendment of the plaint and that the value of the subject matter has since been enhanced as seen in the valuation report.

# **Hearing and representation.**

The Applicants are represented by Messrs Kaggwa and Partners Co. Advocates while the Respondents are represented by Kaggwa and Kaggwa Advocates.

The 1<sup>st</sup> Respondent opposed the application and contended that the Applicant does not have the requisite qualifications to depose the affidavit as he does not have the qualifications in valuation; the applicant has no locus standi to bring the suit as he does not have letters of administration and that he can only bring a claim in compensation that would accrue to him as if the deceased were still alive. He prayed that the court should reject the application.

# Issue.

Whether the applicants should be granted leave to amend the plaint.

# **Resolution of the issue.**

Order 6 Rule 19 of the CPR empowers the Court to grant leave to a party to amend their pleadings at any stage of the proceedings. It stipulates as follows;

571 collaps

"The court may, at any stage of the proceedings, allow either party to alter or amend his or her pleadings in such manner and on such terms as may be just, and all such amendments shall be made as may be necessary for the purpose of determining the real questions in controversy between the parties."

The principles that have been recognized by the courts as governing the exercise of discretion to allow or disallow amendment of pleadings have been summarized in a number of decided cases see See: Gaso Transport Services (Bus) Ltd vs Obene (1990-1994) EA 88; Mulowooza & Brothers Ltd vs Shah & Co. Ltd, SCCA No. 26 of 2010; and Nicholas Serunkuma Ssewagudde & 2 Others vs Namasole Namusoke Namatovu Veronica **HCMA No. 1307 of 2016.**

The considerations laid down in Gaso Transport services (Bus) Ltd supra are as follows:

- 1. The amendment should not work injustice to the other side. Any Injury that can be compensated for by way of costs is not treated as injustice. - 2. Multiplicity of proceeding should be avoided as far as possible and all amendments, which avoid such multiplicity, should be allowed. - 3. An application which is made mala fides should not be granted. - 4. No amendment should be allowed where it is expressly or impliedly prohibited by any law.

In this case, the only amendment being sought is to enhance the value of the compensation money due to effluxion of time. The Respondents, when they appeared before me for mention of the main suit, argued that there was no need for amendment as all value of land will usually increase over time. They contended that the suit property was going to waste and the Applicants were dragging their feet simply because they had been granted temporary reliefs

$15106$ laus

which favoured them. That the court had refused review of the orders granting the injunction where they had sought that the suit land should at least be fenced off to lock out trespassers. In there view this application is intended to delay the case and is therefore mala fide.

In my view and respectfully, this is a rather strange application as it is common knowledge that land as a commodity will increase in value unless there other extraneous factors like war, disease, flooding etcetera. This application is for the value of land to be amended from UGX 613.000,000/ $=$ (Six hundred thirteen million shillings) to UGX $812,000,000/$ = (eight hundred twelve thousand million shillings only). The reason for amendment is stated in paragraph 3 of the affidavit and in summary is due to effluxion of time.

This reasoning does not meet the principles enunciated in **Gaso Transport supra** which was cited by the applicant. Whereas it does not offend the all the principles mentioned therein, to allow this application would open the flood gates of such undeserving applications and would in my considered opinion, be an abuse of court process and impede the duty of the court to curtail delays in trials. This application is not brought in good faith and is therefore made mala fide. The duty of advocates to their clients cannot be over emphasized. Such actions and mala fide applications greatly contribute to the already burdensome workload of judicial officers and unnecessarily delays trials. The guidance pf this court is that a party to such amendments would at the opportune time present a witness who can attest to the increment in the value of the land instead of resorting to amendment of pleadings.

For the above reasons, I dismiss the application with costs to the Respondents.

Dated at Kampala this $27$ <sup>th</sup> day of June 2025.

$\bigvee \hspace{1.5em}$

# **Christine Kaahwa**

**JUDGE**