Wakilii

Electoral Commission v Ssekikubo (Civil Application No. 14 of 2009)

Court of Appeal · [2015] UGCA 187 · 2015 Application Dismissed ✦ AI-generated summary ↓ Download
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Application for leave to adduce additional evidence on appeal, arising out of Civil Appeal No. 078 of 2008
Decision
Application for leave to adduce additional evidence dismissed for lack of merit

The full judgment

Read the complete, verbatim text of this judgment.

Sign in to read the full judgment

AI-generated summary. This summary was generated by AI from the full text of the judgment. It may contain errors or omissions — always read the source judgment before relying on it.

Holding

The Court of Appeal dismissed the Electoral Commission's application for leave to adduce additional evidence on appeal. Applying the principles in Karmali Tarmohammed v Lakhani, Ladd v Marshall and Attorney General v Ssemogerere, the Court held that additional evidence may only be admitted in exceptional circumstances where the evidence could not, with reasonable diligence, have been available at trial. Since the expenditure records were already in existence and the applicant, a body with a fully-fledged legal office, failed to exercise due diligence in availing them, the application lacked merit. The Court emphasised that a client cannot simply blame counsel for failing to produce evidence within the client's knowledge.

Facts

Judgment was entered against the applicant, the Electoral Commission, in H.C.C.S No. 035 of 2006, where it failed to prove the amount of money it spent on the election of male youth councilors for Sembabule District Council in 2006, and was ordered to pay costs. After judgment, the applicant said it discovered that actual expenditure records for those elections, though in existence at the time, had not been availed to its counsel and consequently were not placed before the High Court. The applicant then sought leave from the Court of Appeal, in proceedings arising out of Civil Appeal No. 078 of 2008, to adduce that additional evidence by affidavit on appeal. The application was supported by an affidavit of Sam A. Rwakoojo, Secretary to the Electoral Commission, which admitted that the evidence was in existence at the relevant time.

Issues

  1. Whether the applicant satisfied the conditions for leave to adduce additional evidence on appeal.
  2. Whether the applicant exercised due diligence to make the expenditure records available at trial.

Orders

  • Application dismissed for lack of merit.
  • Costs of the application to abide the outcome of the appeal.

Key headnotes

Evidence — Additional Evidence on Appeal — Conditions for Admission
An appellate court may admit additional evidence only in exceptional circumstances, including where the evidence could not, with reasonable diligence, have been available at trial, is relevant and credible, and would probably influence the result of the case, supported by proof attached to the affidavit and brought without undue delay.
Civil Procedure — Additional Evidence — Due Diligence — Client's Duty
A party cannot rely on the failure of its counsel to justify admission of additional evidence where the evidence was within the party's own knowledge; it is the duty of a client, particularly one with its own legal office, to ensure counsel has all evidence necessary to prove its case.
Civil Procedure — Finality of Litigation — Reopening Completed Cases on Appeal
Courts should be especially stringent in allowing a party to adduce additional evidence to reopen a case already completed on appeal, since there would be no end to litigation unless parties are expected to put their full case before the court.

Legislation cited (6)

  • Judicature (Court of Appeal Rules) Directions S.I 13-10 Rule 30(1)(b)
  • Judicature (Court of Appeal Rules) Directions S.I 13-10 Rule 30(2)
  • Judicature (Court of Appeal Rules) Directions S.I 13-10 Rule 30(3)
  • Judicature (Court of Appeal Rules) Directions S.I 13-10 Rule 30(4)
  • Judicature (Court of Appeal Rules) Directions S.I 13-10 Rule 43
  • Judicature (Court of Appeal Rules) Directions S.I 13-10 Rule 44

Cases cited (4)

  • Karmali Tarmohammed v Lakhani (1958) EA 567
  • Ladd v Marshall [1954] 3 All ER 745
  • Elgood v R [1968] EA 279
  • Attorney General v Ssemogerere (Constitutional Application No. 2 of 2004)
Source: this page presents Wakilii’s issue analysis and metadata for a publicly reported Ugandan judgment. Any AI-generated summary is marked as such. Judgment text is sourced from the Uganda Legal Information Institute (ulii.org). Wakilii is not affiliated with ULII.