Court name
High Court of Uganda
Judgment date
13 October 2000

Haji Subair Magomu v Uganda Posts & Telecommunications Corporation (Civil Suit-1997/2044) [2000] UGHC 16 (13 October 2000);

Cite this case
[2000] UGHC 16


 


THE REPUBLIC OF UGANDA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF UGANDA AT KAMPALA
CIVIL SUIT NO. 2044 OF 1997

HAJI SUBAIR MAGOMU::::::::::::::::: PLAINTIFF/COUNTER DEFENDANT


VERSUS

UGANDA POSTS AND TELECOMMUNICATIONS CORPORATION::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: DEFENDANT/COUNTER CLAIMANT

BEFORE: THE HONOURABLE MR. AG. JUSTICE PAUL K. M(JGAMBA 
RULING:
On 1st November 2000 when counsel for the plaintiff sought to call evidence, Mr. Sendege counsel for the defendant raised a preliminary objection. Mr. Sendege argued that the amended plaint were not pleadings properly before court because it offended provisions of Order 6 rule 1 of the Civil Procedure Rules. Counsel observed that the amended plaint is not accompanied by a summary of evidence, a list of witnesses, a list of documents and a list of authorities to be relied on as is mandatory. Counsel for the plaintiff on the other hand stated that the amended plaint was properly before court. He argued that the original plaint had been filed on 5th December 1997 before the amendment to Order 6 rule 1. The amendment was published on 24th July 1998 and, counsel argued, that being the case the amendment to the plaint which was filed on 22nd June 2000 was not affected by the change in 0.6 r 1.

Having heard from both counsel, I note that resulting from the amendment both the original plaint and the amendment bear the same registry number. However, by amending the plaintiff introduced pleadings that are separate, distinct from the original ones. Distinct because the amended plaint attracted separate fees and sought fresh pleadings of the defendant. While no one will hazard that the pleadings of 1997 could be affected by the amendment to 0.6 rule 1, it is obvious the pleadings after 24th July 1998 are subject to the amended. It is to the credit of the defendant that the amended defence complies with the new procedure. It behoved the plaintiff to accompany the amended plaint with the required appendages.

I agree with counsel for the defendant that omission to comply with the provisions of 0.6 r 1 is fatal to the pleadings and I must strike out the plaint with costs.

Paul K. Mugamba
Ag. Judge
 13th October 2000
Mr. Adolf Mwesige for the plaintiff
Mr. Sempa for the defendant
Mr. Mugerwa court clerk.

Court:
Ruling read in court.

Paul K. Mugamba
Ag. Judge.