Uganda Case Law

National Social Security Fund v Kabuye Ibrahim and Others

National Social Security Fund v Kabuye Ibrahim and Others (Miscellaneous Application No 3331 of 2024) [2025] UGHCLD 54 (9 May 2025)

Court

HC: Land Division (Uganda)

Case number

Miscellaneous Application No 3331 of 2024

Judge

Naluzze Aisha Batala, J

The court found that the applicant does not have an automatic right of appeal and must seek leave. Upon review of the draft memorandum of appeal and the grounds advanced, the court was persuaded that the proposed grounds merit serious consideration by the Court of Appeal, particularly regarding the propriety and extent of the amendments to the 9th Respondent's defence. The court held that the applicant demonstrated arguable grounds of appeal and that the issues raised are not frivolous. Therefore, leave to appeal was granted, with no order as to costs.

Source excerpt

• Leave To Appeal
• Amendment Of Pleadings
• Written Statement Of Defence
• Prejudice To Party
• Procedural Requirements
• Fraudulent Acquisition Of Title

Najjuko v Rita Lubowa

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

Court

HC: Land Division (Uganda)

Case number

Miscellaneous Application 1072 of 2022

Judge

Basaza, J

The High Court allowed an application to amend a plaint, finding the proposed changes necessary to determine the real issues and causing no shown prejudice.

• Amendment Of Pleadings
• Leave To Amend
• Multiplicity Of Suits
• Prejudice To Party
• Amendment-of-pleadings
• Leave-to-amend

Emirates Safaris v The Development Analyst

Emirates Safaris v The Development Analyst (Miscellaneous Application 458 of 2022) [2022] UGCommC 178 (19 November 2022)

Court

Commercial Court of Uganda

Case number

Miscellaneous Application 458 of 2022

Judge

Anna B. Mugenyi, J

The court held that the strict timelines under Order 12 Rule 3 of the Civil Procedure Rules do not apply to affidavits in reply in miscellaneous applications, especially where the affidavit constitutes evidence rather than a pleading. The Respondent filed the affidavit before the hearing date, and the Applicant failed to demonstrate any prejudice that would result from its consideration. The court adopted the reasoning in Dr. Lam-Lagoro James v Muni University, emphasizing that affidavits in reply should be filed within a reasonable time before the hearing, and technicalities should not defea…

Source excerpt

• Affidavit Filing Timelines
• Striking Out Affidavit
• Prejudice To Party
• Application Of Order 12 Rule 3
• Technicalities Vs Merits