Share
Shumuk Springs Development (SSL) Ltd v Muyinza Joseph Bunoli and Others (Miscellaneous Application No. 3090 PF 2024) [2025] UGHCLD 90 (19 June 2025)
- Citation
- [2025] UGHCLD 90
- Status
- Judgment
- Jurisdiction
- Uganda
- Court
- HC: Land Division (Uganda)
- Panel
- Nassuna Matovu, J
- Case number
- Miscellaneous Application No. 3090 PF 2024
- Language
- English
More details
- Court
- HC: Land Division (Uganda)
- Panel
- Nassuna Matovu, J
- Case number
- Miscellaneous Application No. 3090 PF 2024
- Language
- English
On this page
Professional case brief
Research organized from the available case record
01
Holding and result
The court found that the presence of the 3rd and 4th respondents is necessary for the proper determination of the dispute in Civil Suit No. 342 of 2023. Since the application to amend the plaint and add these parties was not opposed, and the respondents were duly served, the court exercised its discretion to grant leave to amend the plaint. The court relied on the principles that amendments should be allowed to enable the real issues to be determined and that all necessary parties should be joined to avoid multiplicity of proceedings and ensure complete adjudication of the matter.
Court disposition
application granted
Orders
- Applicant is granted leave to amend the plaint in Civil Suit No. 342 of 2023 to add the 3rd and 4th respondents as parties.
- The amendment must be effected within 15 days from the date of the ruling.
- Costs shall be in the cause.
02
Material facts
Parties
Shumuk Springs Development (SSL) Ltd
Applicant Counsel: Mr. Nuwamanya BalamMuyinza Joseph Bunoli
RespondentKampala District Land Board
RespondentKamukama Edwin Ndebesa
RespondentEquity Bank
Respondent Counsel: Ms. Twebaza Angella03
Procedural history
Posture
Miscellaneous Application / Ruling on Application for Leave to Amend Plaint and Add Parties
04
Questions and positions
Legal issues
- 01
Whether the applicant should be granted leave to amend the plaint in Civil Suit No. 342 of 2023.
- 02
Whether the 3rd and 4th respondents should be added as parties to the suit.
Party arguments
- Applicant
- The applicant argued that the presence of the 3rd and 4th respondents is necessary for the proper determination of the dispute and sought leave to amend the plaint to add them as parties. The application was not opposed by the 4th respondent, and the other respondents did not file affidavits in reply or appear in court despite proof of service.
- Respondent
- The 4th respondent, through counsel, confirmed that they do not oppose the application. The 1st, 2nd, and 3rd respondents did not appear or file any response.
05
Court’s reasoning
Legal principles
- 01
Order 6 Rule 19 of the Civil Procedure Rules (CPR)
Leave to amend pleadings should be granted where it is necessary for the proper determination of the real issues in controversy and does not prejudice the other parties.
- 02
Order 1 Rule 10(2) of the Civil Procedure Rules (CPR)
All necessary parties should be joined to enable the court to effectively and completely adjudicate upon and settle all questions involved in the suit.
06
Ratio, limits and disposition
Ratio decidendi
The court found that the presence of the 3rd and 4th respondents is necessary for the proper determination of the dispute in Civil Suit No. 342 of 2023. Since the application to amend the plaint and add these parties was not opposed, and the respondents were duly served, the court exercised its discretion to grant leave to amend the plaint. The court relied on the principles that amendments should be allowed to enable the real issues to be determined and that all necessary parties should be joined to avoid multiplicity of proceedings and ensure complete adjudication of the matter.
Obiter and limits
- Costs shall be in the cause.
Court disposition
application granted
- Applicant is granted leave to amend the plaint in Civil Suit No. 342 of 2023 to add the 3rd and 4th respondents as parties.
- The amendment must be effected within 15 days from the date of the ruling.
- Costs shall be in the cause.
Source and reliance status
HC: Land Division (Uganda)
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.
HC: Land Division (Uganda)
Judgment
THE REPUBLIC OF UGANDA IN THE HIGH COURT OF UGANDA AT KAMPALA (LAND DIVISION) MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION NO. 3090 PF 2024 (ARISING FROM CIVIL SUIT NO. 342 OF 2023)
SHUMUK SPRINGS DEVELOPMENT (SSL) LTD ::: PLAINTIFF VERSUS
1. MUYINZA JOSEPH BUNOLI
2. KAMPALA DISTRICT LAND BOARD
3. KAMUKAMA EDWIN NDEBESA
4. EQUITY BANK :::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: DEFENDANTS
BEFORE: HON. LADY JUSTICE FLAVIA NASSUNA MATOVU
PROCEEDINGS:
Date: 19/6/2025
Mr. Nuwamanya Balam from M/s Pearl Advocates and solicitors for applicant
Applicant's representative Judith Ayebare – present
M/s Twebaza Angella from M/s Kalikumutima & Co. Advocates for 4th respondent.
1st, 2nd and 3rd respondents absent
Mr. Nuwamanya:
The respondents were served but are not in court. There is proof of service.
I pray that we proceed exparte against them: Court: Application to proceed exported granted.
Mr. Nuwamanya: The 4th Respondent filed an affidavit in reply and is not opposing this application. The other respondents did not file affidavits in reply. I pray that the application be allowed since it is not opposed.
Ms. Tewabaza: It is true we are not opposing the application.
Court:
After carefully studying the pleadings. I am convinced that the 3rd and 4th Respondents presence in this matter is necessary for proper determination of the dispute by court. The 4th Respondent is not opposing this application.
The application is therefore hereby granted and applicant is granted leave to amend the Plaint in Civil Suit No. 342 of 2023 and add the 3rd and 4th Respondents as parties to the case. This should be done within 15 days from today.
Costs shall be in the cause.
Flavia Nassuna Matovu
Judge 19/6/2025
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.