Share
Abdulali Jiwanjee and Co. Ltd v Highland Commercial Union (Civil Suit No. 42 of 1952) [1952] EACA 3 (1 January 1952)
- Citation
- [1952] EACA 3
- Status
- Judgment
- Jurisdiction
- Uganda
- Court
- East African Court of Appeal
- Panel
- Connell J
- Case number
- Civil Suit No. 42 of 1952
- Language
- English
More details
- Court
- East African Court of Appeal
- Panel
- Connell J
- Case number
- Civil Suit No. 42 of 1952
- Language
- English
On this page
Professional case brief
Research organized from the available case record
01
Holding and result
The court found that the plaintiff's application to amend the name of the defendant was made in bad faith, as it sought to back-date the amendment and avoid crediting the substantial payment already made by the defendant. Allowing the amendment would gravely prejudice the defendant and deny them recovery of costs. The facts of the case did not warrant the amendment, and the justice of the case did not require it. The principles established in Steward v. North Metropolitan Tramways Co. were applied, leading to the dismissal of the application with costs.
Court disposition
application dismissed
Orders
- The application to amend the plaint is dismissed with costs.
02
Material facts
Parties
Abdulali Jiwanjee & Co. Ltd.
Plaintiff Counsel: AhmedHighland Commercial Union
Defendant Counsel: MitraAmounts and remedies
- Amount Paid by Defendant: KES 4,351.1
- Disputable Balance: KES 650
03
Procedural history
Posture
Civil Suit / Application to Amend Plaint
04
Questions and positions
Legal issues
- 01
Whether the plaintiff's application to amend the name of the defendant after service was made in good faith.
- 02
Whether the justice of the case required the amendment to be allowed.
Party arguments
- Applicant
- The plaintiff sought to amend the plaint by substituting 'Highland Commercial Union Ltd.' for 'Highland Commercial Union', arguing that the amendment was necessary for proper identification of the defendant and that the claim was still outstanding except for a small balance.
- Respondent
- The defendant objected to the amendment, asserting that the company had already paid the claim in full, and that the amendment was sought in bad faith to back-date the plaint and avoid crediting the payment, which would prejudice the defendant and deny recovery of costs.
05
Court’s reasoning
Legal principles
- 01
Order 6, rule 19 of the Civil Procedure (Revised) Rules, 1948
Amendments to pleadings should be allowed only if made in good faith and if the justice of the case requires it.
- 02
Steward v. North Metropolitan Tramways Co., (1886) 16 Q. B. D. 556
Applications made in bad faith or which would prejudice the defendant should be disallowed.
- 03
Phakey v. World Wide Agencies Ltd., (1948) 15 E. A. C. A. 1
Distinction between cases where justice requires amendment and those where it does not.
06
Ratio, limits and disposition
Ratio decidendi
The court found that the plaintiff's application to amend the name of the defendant was made in bad faith, as it sought to back-date the amendment and avoid crediting the substantial payment already made by the defendant. Allowing the amendment would gravely prejudice the defendant and deny them recovery of costs. The facts of the case did not warrant the amendment, and the justice of the case did not require it. The principles established in Steward v. North Metropolitan Tramways Co. were applied, leading to the dismissal of the application with costs.
Obiter and limits
- The facts of this case are quite different from those in Phakey v. World Wide Agencies Ltd., where the justice of the case required the amendment.
- There would be no means of recouping the defendant with costs if the amendment were allowed.
Court disposition
application dismissed
- The application to amend the plaint is dismissed with costs.
Source and reliance status
East African Court of Appeal
This page organises the available record for research. Confirm quotations, current status, and subsequent treatment against the official source before relying on the case.
Judgment reading view
Judgment text
The complete available source text.
East African Court of Appeal
Judgment
ORIGINAL CIVIL
Before CONNELL, J.
ABDULALI JIWANJEE & CO. LTD, Plaintiff ν.
HIGHLAND COMMERCIAL UNION, Defendants
Civil Suit No. 42 of 1952
Civil Procedure and Practice-Civil Procedure (Revised) Rules, 1948-Order 6, rule 19—Amendment to name of defendant—Application by plaintiffs to amend name of defendant after service—Whether in good faith—Whether justice of suit required amendment.
The facts appear fully from the order of the Court.
Held (21-5-52).—The application to amend having been made in bad faith, was disallowed. The justice of the case did not require the amendment.
Case distinguished: Phakey v. World Wide Agencies Ltd., (1948) 15 E. A. C. A.
1.
Case cited: Steward v. North Metropolitan Tramways Co., (1886) 16 Q. B. D.
556.
Ahmed for plaintiff company.
Mitra for defendants.
ORDER.—On 8th February, the plaintiffs filed a suit, for goods sold and delivered, against the Highland Commercial Union. On 19th February, 1952, the summons was accepted and stamped on behalf of Highland Commercial Union Ltd. On 26th February, the Company's advocates wrote two letters stating (1) that the summons had been erroneously accepted as the suit was not instituted against the Company; $(2)$ enclosing cheque for Sh. 4,351/10 in favour of the plaintiffs.
On 6th May a summons was filed to amend the plaint by substituting the words "Highland Commercial Union Ltd." instead of Highland Commercial Union and, on 15th May, 1952, what purported to be a copy of an affidavit (undated and unsigned) was placed before me objecting to the "impleading" of the Company as defendant, since plaintiff has "now no cause of action against the Company as it has paid the claim in full".
Now there is no doubt whatever that after the original plaint was filed and the sum of Sh. 4,351/10 was sent, Mr. Ahmed's clients, the plaintiffs, accepted that sum (as he agrees) "towards payment in this case". There is left, therefore, only a small disputable balance of Sh. 650 odd. To allow this amendment under those circumstances and to back-date the plaint would not only gravely prejudice the defendant, but there would be no means of recouping the defendant with costs. Moreover, I think the application is clearly made in bad faith as it is sought by back-dating the amendment to give no credit at all for the sum of Sh. 4,351/10. The facts are quite different from those of *Phakey v. World Wide* Agencies Ltd., (1948) 15 E. A. C. A.
1. In the latter case the learned President and Justices of Appeal were entirely satisfied that the justice of the case required the amendment. In the present case I am entirely satisfied that the justice of the case does not require the amendment.
In my view, the present application comes entirely within the principles laid down in Steward v. North Metropolitan Tramways Co., (1886) 16 Q. B. D.
556. It is dismissed with costs.
Case-aware research
Ask AI about this case
The judgment and available research above are public. New questions open in a separate private conversation grounded in this case.