Uganda Source-linked decisions Coverage checked

Uganda Case Law

Search judgments by proposition, citation, court, judge or legal topic, then move directly into the source-grounded case analysis.

Courts on this page: 2 court collections
Last checked: 18 Sep 2026, 04:43 UTC

Results update automatically as you type.

Judge

Topic

Legal area

Court

Uganda decisions

Decisions matching the current search

Clear filters

18 Oct 2022

Civil Procedure [2022] UGHCCD 204

Wind river Logistics Limited and Another v Mityana Farm Group Enterprises Limited and 2 Others

Wind river Logistics Limited and Another v Mityana Farm Group Enterprises Limited and 2 Others (Miscellaneous Application No. 169 of 2022) [2022] UGHCCD 204 (18 October 2022)

Court: HC: Civil Division (Uganda)
Case number: Miscellaneous Application No. 169 of 2022
Judges: Zeija, PJ

The court found that the amendment sought by the applicants was to correct a typographical error in the description of the suit land, changing 'Busiro Block' to 'Singo Block,' and that all other particulars of the land remained unchanged. The court held that the error was inadvertent and did not introduce a new cause of action or prejudice the respondents' defense. The court further found that the affidavit in reply was properly commissioned and that objections based on uncommissioned attachments were misplaced. The court emphasized that amendments to pleadings should be liberally allowed to…

Source excerpt

Amendment Of Pleadings
Typographical Errors
Prejudice To Opposing Party

Read case analysis

18 Oct 2022

Civil Procedure [2022] UGHC 35

Windriver Logistics Ltd and Another v Mityana Farm Group and Others

Windriver Logistics Ltd and Another v Mityana Farm Group and Others (Miscellaneous Application No. 169 of 2022) [2022] UGHC 35 (18 October 2022)

Court: High Court of Uganda
Case number: Miscellaneous Application No. 169 of 2022
Judges: Zeija, PJ

The court found that the amendment sought by the applicants was to correct a typographical error in the description of the suit land and did not introduce a new cause of action. The description of the land in the original and amended plaints was consistent except for the misnaming of the block, and all other particulars remained intact. The respondents failed to demonstrate that the amendment would occasion injustice that could not be compensated by costs or that it prejudiced any existing rights. The court also held that the affidavit in reply was competently commissioned and that any proced…