Topic: Amendment of Pleadings
Date of Judgment: 5 July 2024
Court: High Court of Uganda at Mbarara
Case Number: Miscellaneous Application 156 of 2023 (Arising from HCT-05-LD-CS-0111-2022)
Judge: Hon. Justice Nshimye Allan Paul M.
Summary Facts of the Case
The Registered Trustees of Church of Uganda (Respondent) filed Civil Suit No. 111 of 2022 against the National Animal Genetic Resources Centre and Data Bank (Applicant) alleging trespass on their land located in Kayonza, Kikatsi, Nyabushozi in Kiruhura District.
The Applicant filed a Written Statement of Defence (WSD) and a counterclaim, denying the trespass and asserting that the Respondent’s freehold title was illegally obtained over the Applicant’s existing leasehold title on the same land.
In this Application, the Applicant sought to amend its WSD to include additional material facts and documents that were allegedly inadvertently omitted, claiming this amendment was necessary to resolve the real dispute and prevent multiple suits.
The Applicant intended to include details of a lease agreement executed on 20th November 1963, where the Government of Uganda through the Uganda Land Commission acquired 12,183 acres of land in Kiruhura District from the Kingdom of Ankole for 99 years.
The proposed amendments detailed that the Respondent’s freehold title was obtained illegally over a leasehold title held by the Uganda Land Commission. Specifics included how the Respondent allegedly surveyed off a portion of land without the knowledge of the Uganda Land Commission and obtained a freehold title over an existing leasehold title.
Main Legal Issues
- Whether the proposed amendment of Pleadings be Allowed
The Decision of the Court
The Court dismissed the application for amendment.
The key consideration was:
The Applicant’s claim that the Respondent created a freehold title over the leasehold title held by the Uganda Land Commission was not substantiated as the Uganda Land Commission was not made a party to the suit, which was a significant oversight.
The court held that the application was mala fide, and not meant to aid in the resolution of the case, but rather to complicate matters.
The court’s decision was guided by Order 6 Rule 19 of the Civil Procedure Rules, which permits amendments to pleadings under certain circumstances to resolve the real questions in controversy between the parties.
The court relied on the Supreme Court decision in Gaso Transport Services v. Obene where the Apex Court guided on the considerations for amendment of pleadings thus:
- The amendments should not work injustice to the other side. An injury which can be compensated by the award of costs is not treated as an injustice.
- Multiplicity of proceedings should be avoided as far as possible and all amendments which avoid such multiplicity should be allowed
- An application which is made malafide should not be granted.
- No amendments should be allowed where it is expressly or impliedly prohibited by any law
The Court also relied on the case of Mulowooza & Brothers Vs. Nshah & Co. Ltd for the proposition that the test that needs to be applied before the amendment of pleadings is allowed or rejected is whether the proposed amendment introduced a distinct new cause of action instead of the original or whether and in what way it would prejudice the rights of the opposite party.
Key Quote
“In respect to the proposed amendments, I note that they mainly detail the ownership of the land by the Uganda Land Commission and seek cancelation of the respondent’s freehold title. Some of the details that have been listed in the proposed amendment such as ownership of the leasehold and how it relates to the applicant can be brought onto court record by way of witness statements under order 18 Rule 5A of the Civil Procedure Rules as amended. I note that the applicant, a body corporate as stated in Section 13 of the Animal Breeding Act, 2001 is not the proprietor of the leasehold title LRV 743 Folio 21, yet it claims in the proposed amendment that the respondent created a freehold title over the leasehold title. I also note that the proprietor of the leasehold land comprised in LRV 743 Folio 21 is Uganda Land Commission, yet it is not a party to the suit in HCCS 111 of 2022, and it is not even proposed as a party in the proposed amendment. These are fundamental contradictions, lead me to conclude that the application is not brought in good faith, and is not really meant to aid resolution, otherwise the proprietor of the leasehold would have been made a party or proposed as a party in the proposed amendment in the counterclaim. I therefore based on the above to find that the application is Malafide.” – Hon. Justice Nshimye Allan Paul M
Law Applied
- Order 6 Rules 19 and 30 of the Civil Procedure Rules
- Gaso Transport Services v. Obene No. 4 Of 1994 (1990-1994) 1 EA 88
- Mulowooza & Brothers v. N.Shah & Co. Ltd SCCA 26 OF 2010
Counsel on Record
- For the Applicant: Edwin Tabaro from M/s KTA Advocates
- For the Respondent: Oine Ronald from M/s Tumusiime Kabega & Co Advocates
Conclusion
This ruling demonstrates the principle that courts won’t allow amendments to pleadings if the amendments are not made in good faith to facilitate the resolution of the case.