Mulago Hill Diagnostics Limited v Lydia Turyahumura and Others (Miscellaneous Application No. 2221 of 2025) [2026] UGHCLD 96 (17 April 2026)

Ulii

Automated Summary

Key Facts

The Applicant, Mulago Hill Diagnostics Limited, is the equitable owner of land at Block 29, Plots 1128 and 1129 at Mulago, with an access road to a garage that was allegedly unlawfully taken over by the 1st and 2nd Respondents (administrators of the late Benon Turyahumura's estate) in 2018. The 1st and 2nd Respondents transferred the neighboring land (Block 29 Plots 1126 and 1127, formerly Plot 92) to the 3rd Respondent, Lakshmannagari Somasekhar Reddy, after November 25, 2024. The Applicant sought to have the 3rd Respondent added as a Defendant in Civil Suit No. 856 of 2018 and to amend the plaint to reflect this. The Court found that since the 3rd Respondent purchased land from the 1st and 2nd Respondents that is subject to dispute in the main suit, it is proper to add the 3rd Respondent as a Defendant to ensure complete adjudication and avoid multiplicity of proceedings. The Court granted leave to add the 3rd Respondent as Defendant and to amend the plaint to reflect this, but did not grant leave to amend the plaint to include additional claims that were not prayed for.

Deceased Name

Benon Turyahumura

Issues

  • The court examined whether the Applicant should be granted leave to add the 3rd Respondent as a Defendant in Civil Suit No. 856 of 2018. The Applicant argued that the 3rd Respondent's interests would be affected by the orders sought in the main suit, and that the 3rd Respondent ought to be added as a Defendant so that he would be bound by the orders issued by Court. The court found that since the 3rd Respondent bought land from the 1st and 2nd Respondents, a part of which is subject to a dispute in Civil Suit No. 856 of 2018, it is proper that the 3rd Respondent should be added as a Defendant in the main suit to defend his interests.
  • The court considered whether the Applicant should be granted leave to amend the plaint in Civil Suit No. 856 of 2018 to reflect the 3rd Respondent as a Defendant. The Applicant sought to amend the pleadings so that the real issues in controversy may be determined between the proper parties. The court found that since the 3rd Respondent bought land from the 1st and 2nd Respondents, a part of which is subject to a dispute in Civil Suit No. 856 of 2018, it is proper that the 3rd Respondent should be added as a Defendant in the main suit. The court held that the joinder of the 3rd Respondent as a Defendant will enable the Court to effectively deal with the issue in controversy.

Holdings

The court granted the Applicant leave to add the 3rd Respondent as a Defendant in Civil Suit No. 856 of 2018 and to amend the plaint to reflect the 3rd Respondent as the 3rd Defendant. The court denied leave to amend the plaint to include material claims that were left out by previous lawyers. The Applicant/Plaintiff was ordered to file an amended Plaint by 20th May, 2026, and all parties must observe Civil Procedure Rules timelines for subsequent pleadings. Costs shall abide the outcome of the main suit.

Remedies

  • The Court granted the Applicant leave to amend the plaint in Civil Suit No. 856 of 2018 to reflect the 3rd Respondent as the 3rd Defendant. This amendment is necessary since the 3rd Respondent purchased land from the 1st and 2nd Respondents, and a part of that land is subject to dispute in the main suit.
  • The Applicant/Plaintiff was ordered to file an amended Plaint in court and serve the same on all Defendants by 20th May, 2026. The Plaintiff and Defendants must observe the time lines for filing their respective pleadings as provided for in the Civil Procedure Rules.
  • The costs of this Application shall abide the outcome of the main suit (Civil Suit No. 856 of 2018). The Court did not grant leave to amend the plaint to include material claims that were left out by previous lawyers as this was not prayed for in the Application.
  • The Court granted the Applicant leave to add the 3rd Respondent as a Defendant in Civil Suit No. 856 of 2018, as the orders sought in the main suit would legally affect the 3rd Respondent's interests and joinder is necessary for effective and complete settlement of all questions involved in the suit.

Probate Status

Lydia Turyahumura and Dora Kiconco are formally registered as administrators of the estate of the late Benon Turyahumura

Legal Principles

  • The applicant claimed an access road leading to their garage was unlawfully taken over by respondents in 2018, terminating their easement rights. The court found the 3rd Respondent should be joined as a Defendant since the land they purchased was subject to the easement dispute. The court also considered amendment of pleadings to reflect the 3rd Respondent as a necessary party under Order 1 Rule 3 and Rule 10(2) of the Civil Procedure Rules.
  • The court applied Article 126(2)(e) of the Constitution which emphasizes substantive justice rather than undue regard to technicalities. This principle was used to overrule the preliminary objection raised about the deponent's authority to institute the application on behalf of the company, as the court found no legal requirement for directors to attach proof of their position when not contested.

Succession Regime

Other

Precedent Name

  • The Departed Asian's Property Custodian Board Vs. Jaffer Brothers
  • Mutebi Vs. Nam Chhau Trading Co. Ltd
  • Nabukenya Sarah & others Vs. Sulaiman Mukasa & Sons Ltd & 5 others
  • Alisen Foundation Group of Companies Limited Vs. Bazara
  • Black Market Records Vs. Mainga Sulaiman & 3 others
  • Gaso Transport Services (Bus) Ltd Vs. Oben
  • MHK Engineering Services (U) Ltd Vs. MacDowell Ltd
  • Samson Sempasa Vs. P.K.Sengendo
  • Lena Nakalema Binaisa & 3 others Vs. Mucunguzi Myers

Executor Name

  • Dora Kiconco
  • Lydia Turyahumura

Cited Statute

  • The Constitution
  • Civil Procedure Rules
  • Civil Procedure Act Cap 282
  • Civil Procedure Rules SI 71-1
  • Judicature Act Cap 16

Executor Appointment

Administrator of the estate of the late Benon Turyahumura

Judge Name

Hon. Lady Justice Nakiganda Ida

Passage Text

  • In a suit by or against a corporation, any pleading may be signed on behalf of the corporation by the secretary or by any director or other principal officer of the corporation who is able to depose to the facts of the case.
  • I therefore find that since the 3rd Respondent bought land from the 1st and 2nd Respondents, a part of which is subject to a dispute in Civil Suit No. 856 of 2018, it is only proper that the 3rd Respondent should be added as a Defendant in the main suit so that he can also have his day in court and defend his interests if indeed they are subject to the main suit.
  • For a party to be joined on the ground that it is necessary for the effective and complete settlement of all questions involved in the suit, it is necessary to show either that the orders sought would legally affect the interest of that person and that it is desirable to have that person to avoid the multiplicity of suits.