Semanja Godfrey v Moses Mawagali Lusalabaga and Others (Civil Suit 336 of 2023) [2025] UGHC 369 (30 April 2025)

## **THE REPUBLIC OF UGANDA**

## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF UGANDA AT LUWERO**

## **CIVIL SUIT NO. 0336 OF 2023**

**SEMANJA GODFREY :::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: PLAINTIFF**

### **VERSUS**

- **1. MOSES MAWAGALI LUSALABAGA (Administrator of the Estate of the late Lusinga)** - **2. SIMON T. KALANZI** - **3. SSEKIKUBO FRANCIS** - **4. SSEKYEWA GODFREY** - **5. ANDREW AREM** - **6. MULINDWA DAVID DEFENDANTS** - **7. KALENZI YOKANA** - **8. YONATHAN OGWAL** - **9. THE COMMISSIONER LAND REGISTRATION**

# **RULING**

This is a ruling with respect to a preliminary point of the law raised by counsel for the 6th Defendant challenging the amended Plaint filed by the Plaintiff before this Honourable Court.

The Plaintiff in this case is being represented by Counsel Falagi Kitaweyanga while Counsel Consolate Yonirwoth is appearing for the 6th Defendant.

Counsel for the 6 th Defendant submitted that the Plaintiff is in contravention of the Court order issued on the 27th day of January 2025 which order was limited to the amendment of the Plaint to only remove the 7th and 8th Defendants. Counsel argues that instead of complying with the Court order, the Plaintiff has gone on to introduce new amendments/ changes and/or alterations which this Honourable Court did not order and has substantially altered the cause of action against the 6th Defendant.

In reply, counsel for the Plaintiff submitted that the Plaintiff complied with the Court order of filing an amended Plaint by removing the 7th and 8th Defendants and that the cause of action was not in any way altered as alleged by counsel for the 6th Defendant. Counsel further submitted that the 6th Defendant does not


explain and show court what exactly was changed in the Plaint and how the cause of action was altered against the 6th Defendant.

I have had the opportunity to consider the submissions of both parties, the original plaint and the amended Plaint. The law on the amendment of pleadings is governed by **Order 6 Rule 19 of the Civil Procedure Rules** which states that;

*"The court may at any stage of the proceedings, allow either party to alter or amend his or her pleadings in such a 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"*

See also *Gaso Transport Services (Bus) Ltd V Martin Adala Obene Supreme Court Civil Appeal No.4 of 1994*

The record shows that the Plaintiff filed Civil Suit No. 0336 of 2023 against 9 (Nine) Defendants. When the matter came up for scheduling on the 27th day of January 2025, the Plaintiff sought leave of court to amend the Plaint by removing the 7th and 8th defendants which was granted by this Honourable Court. The order granted by this Court states as follows;

*"…*

## *IT IS HEREBY ORDERED AS FOLLOWS:*

- *i) …* - *ii) Counsel for the Plaintiff file his amended Plaint to remove the 7th and 8th Defendants by the 7th February 2025* - *iii) …"*

(Emphasis is mine.)

From the above order, the court restricted the leave granted to amend the plaint to just removing the 7th and 8th Defendants from the Plaint. However, upon perusal of the amended Plaint and the original Plaint, I am in agreement with counsel for the 6th Defendant that the Plaintiff went ahead to amend other paragraphs of the Plaint without seeking leave of court. Some of the impugned paragraphs that were amended in the amended Plaint without the leave of court include paragraphs 8 (f), (g), (i), (l), (m), (n), (t), (y), (cc), and paragraph 12. I


also noted that paragraph 8 (w) of the original plaint was omitted in the amended Plaint.

It is clear that the Plaintiff has amended the Plaint contrary to the order that was made by this Honourable Court. The Plaintiff was simply required to remove the 7th and 8th Defendants from the Plaint, including the claims and facts pertaining to them. If the Plaintiff wished to amend other aspects of the Plaint, he ought to have sought leave of court to do so. Otherwise, circumventing the order issued by the court amounts to an illegality that cannot be condoned by this Court. *(See Makula International Ltd V His Eminence Cardinal Nsubuga and Another (1982) HCB 11).*

I, therefore, uphold the preliminary point of law raised by Counsel for the 6th Defendant and make the following orders;

- 1. The Amended Plaint filed by the Plaintiffs on the 3 rd day of February 2025 is hereby struck off the court record. - 2. The Plaintiff shall amend his Plaint in accordance with the court order issued by Her Worship Catherine Agwero on the 27th day of January 2025. - 3. The amended Plaint shall be filed and served within 15 days from the date of this ruling. - 4. The Defendants shall file and serve their amended Written Statements of Defence within 15 days from the date that they are served with the Amended Plaint. - 5. Costs shall be in the cause.

I so order.

**…………………………………………………………………….. FARIDAH SHAMILLAH BUKIRWA NTAMBI JUDGE**

#### **Delivered on ECCMIS on 30 th April, 2025.**