Wakilii

Attorney General v Byaruhanga and 2499 Others (Civil Application No. 239 of 2021)

Court of Appeal · [2022] UGCA 231 · 2022 Application Dismissed ✦ AI-generated summary ↓ Download
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Application for leave to adduce additional evidence on appeal
Decision
Application for leave to adduce additional evidence dismissed with costs to the respondents; appeal proceeds without the additional evidence

The full judgment

Read the complete, verbatim text of this judgment.

Sign in to read the full judgment
Cited — treatment unverified cited in 1 (treatment unverified) Derived from citing cases in the Wakilii corpus — not an assertion that this case is good law.

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 Attorney General's application for leave to adduce additional evidence on appeal. Applying the principles in the Ssemwogerere case, the court held that the intended evidence (a government valuer's report on ownership of the suit land) did not meet the criteria for admission: it could have been produced at trial with due diligence since the applicant was granted numerous adjournments to obtain it but failed to do so; the report itself was not attached, defeating proof of credibility; and ownership of the land was irrelevant since the dispute concerned compensation for destroyed property held in possession, not title. The application was dismissed with costs to the respondents.

Facts

On 28 May 2019 the High Court at Fort Portal found that the respondents had been wrongfully evicted from land in Kasese District and awarded special damages of UGX 52,658,658,633, plus UGX 4,000,000,000 in general, exemplary and punitive damages, interest and costs. The special damages assessment was largely based on a technical assessment and valuation report by a retired District Agricultural Officer (exhibit PE3). The Attorney General appealed and, on 9 September 2021, applied for leave to adduce additional evidence: findings of a Chief Government Valuer's technical team that the suit land formed part of Kibale National Park and that the respondents' claims could not be verified. The technical team's report itself was not attached to the application. During trial the applicant had been granted numerous adjournments to obtain a government valuation report but failed to do so, a fact noted by the trial judge. The applicant secured the new evidence only after judgment, within about six months of a demand for payment of the decretal sums.

Issues

  1. Whether the additional evidence sought to be adduced on appeal satisfied the conditions for admission under Rule 30(1)(b) of the Judicature (Court of Appeal) Rules.
  2. Whether the evidence was unavailable at trial despite the exercise of due diligence.
  3. Whether the additional evidence was relevant and credible.

Orders

  • Application dismissed.
  • Costs awarded to the respondents.

Key headnotes

Appeals — Additional Evidence on Appeal — Conditions for Admission under Rule 30(1)(b)
An appellate court may exercise its discretion to admit additional evidence only in exceptional circumstances: the evidence must be new and could not have been produced at trial despite due diligence; it must be relevant; it must be credible; it must be capable of influencing the result; proof of the evidence must be attached to the supporting affidavit; and the application must be brought without undue delay.
Additional Evidence on Appeal — Due Diligence — Evidence Available at Trial
Evidence that a party was granted ample time and opportunity to obtain at trial but failed to produce does not qualify as new evidence; Rule 30(1)(b) cannot be used to grant a second opportunity to fill evidential gaps that ought to have been addressed before the trial court.
Additional Evidence on Appeal — Credibility — Failure to Attach Report
Where the report constituting the intended additional evidence is not attached to the supporting affidavit, the court cannot review its methodology, documents and equipment used, and the applicant fails to discharge the burden of proving the credibility of the intended evidence.
Possessory Rights — Compensation for Destruction of Property — Relevance of Title
Where the dispute concerns compensation for property destroyed during eviction of persons in long possession of land, the legal title to that land is not a relevant factor; what is relevant is whether the occupiers held possessory rights at the material time.

Legislation cited (8)

  • Judicature (Court of Appeal) Rules S.I. No. 13-10 r.2(2)
  • Judicature (Court of Appeal) Rules S.I. No. 13-10 r.30(1)(b)
  • Judicature (Court of Appeal) Rules S.I. No. 13-10 r.30(2)
  • Judicature (Court of Appeal) Rules S.I. No. 13-10 r.30(3)
  • Judicature (Court of Appeal) Rules S.I. No. 13-10 r.30(4)
  • Judicature (Court of Appeal) Rules S.I. No. 13-10 r.43
  • Judicature (Court of Appeal) Rules S.I. No. 13-10 r.44
  • Uganda Wildlife (Declaration of Wildlife Conservation Area)(Kibale National Park) S.I. No. 46 of 2003

Cases cited (4)

  • Attorney General v Paul Kawanga Ssemwogerere and Others (Constitutional Application No. 2 of 2004)
  • Namisango Vs. Galiwango and Anor [1986] HCB 37
  • R Vs. Sirasi Bachumira (1934) 3 EACA 41
  • Wuta-Ofei Vs Danquah [1961] W.L.R. 1238 (Privy Council)
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.