Wakilii

Byahugwaho & Anor v Nakabonye (Miscellenous Appeal No. 224 of 2017)

Court of Appeal · [2019] UGCA 16 · 2019 Application Dismissed ✦ AI-generated summary ↓ Download
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Application for leave to adduce additional evidence on a second appeal from the High Court
Decision
Application for leave to adduce additional evidence dismissed with costs

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 an application for leave to adduce additional evidence in a second appeal originating from a High Court decision made in the exercise of its appellate jurisdiction. The Court held that Rule 32(2) of the Judicature (Court of Appeal Rules) Directions clearly prohibits the Court from hearing additional evidence on a second appeal from the High Court acting in its appellate jurisdiction; on such an appeal the Court may only appraise the inferences of fact drawn by the trial court. The rule reflects the principle that there must be an end to litigation. The application was therefore incompetent and was dismissed with costs.

Facts

The respondent, the wife of a former squatter on Ranch No. 49B of the Masaka Ranching Scheme, obtained a lease and later a certificate of title over a piece of land previously occupied by the first applicant. The trial court awarded the suit land to the respondent, and the High Court, on appeal, upheld that decision. On a second appeal to the Court of Appeal, the applicants sought leave to adduce additional evidence, namely a Local Council 1 recommendation and a handwritten document suggesting the respondent had applied for only 35 acres rather than the 75 acres covered by her deed plan, which the applicants contended showed fraud. The respondent contended the application was defective and that the document, dated August 2008, was made after she had acquired title and was unknown to her. The respondent's counsel raised a preliminary objection that the Court could not take additional evidence on a second appeal.

Issues

  1. Whether the Court of Appeal has discretion to receive additional evidence on a second appeal from a decision of the High Court acting in its appellate jurisdiction.

Orders

  • Application dismissed with costs.

Key headnotes

Appeals — Second Appeal — Additional Evidence on Appeal
On a second appeal from a decision of the High Court acting in the exercise of its appellate jurisdiction, the Court of Appeal has power to appraise the inferences of fact drawn by the trial court but has no discretion to hear additional evidence under Rule 32(2) of the Judicature (Court of Appeal Rules) Directions.
Finality of Litigation — Restriction on Additional Evidence on Second Appeal
The prohibition on receiving additional evidence on a second appeal reflects the principle that there must be an end to litigation, and an application seeking such leave is incompetent.

Legislation cited (5)

  • Judicature Act s.11
  • Judicature (Court of Appeal Rules) Directions Rule 30(1)(b), (2), (3) & (4)
  • Judicature (Court of Appeal Rules) Directions Rule 43
  • Judicature (Court of Appeal Rules) Directions Rule 44
  • Judicature (Court of Appeal Rules) Directions Rule 32(2)
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.