Najjuko v Rita Lubowa (Miscellaneous Application 1072 of 2022) [2023] UGHCLD 193 (10 July 2023)

Full Case Text

# 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

#### 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

- ICap 13 - 1Cap 7l - rs.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 4

## 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'

Ialso 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 461

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