Wakilii

Kisuule v Greenland Bank Ltd (Civil Appeal No. 13 of 2009)

Constitutional Court · [2010] UGCC 11 · 2010 Appeal Dismissed ✦ AI-generated summary ↓ Download
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Civil appeal from a High Court order dismissing an application to review its judgment
Decision
Appeal dismissed with costs; the High Court's refusal to review its judgment stands.

The full judgment

Read the complete, verbatim text of this judgment.

Sign in to read the full judgment
Cited — treatment unverified cited in 6 (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 an appeal against the High Court's refusal to review its judgment in a loan-recovery suit. The appellant relied on a letter allegedly showing the respondent bank had agreed to waive loan interest, claiming it was newly discovered evidence. The court held that under Order 46 rule 3(2) of the Civil Procedure Rules an applicant for review must strictly prove the evidence was not within his knowledge or could not be produced when the decree was passed, and that the application is brought without unreasonable delay. The letter was a suspect photocopy from a dubious, unverified source that surfaced five years after the decree and was unsupported by affidavit. The test was not met and the appeal was dismissed with costs.

Facts

The appellant and a co-borrower obtained an overdraft facility from the respondent bank in November 1995, secured by two certificates of title to land at Makerere Kikoni (Block 27, Plots 246 and 138). Their business failed and they defaulted. The co-borrower dropped out and the appellant took over the loan solely, then also defaulted. The bank sold the two plots, realising Shs 7,265,000, which was credited to the account. As at March 2001, Shs 78,197,985 remained outstanding. The bank sued and obtained a decree on 3 October 2005. The appellant later applied to the High Court to review that judgment, relying on a letter said to be dated 14 July 1998 in which the bank had purportedly agreed to waive interest and extend the repayment period — evidence he said he could not produce at trial. The letter surfaced only in 2007, was a photocopy from an unverified source, and was unsupported by any affidavit confirming the circumstances of its discovery. The High Court found the letter suspect and dismissed the review application with costs.

Issues

  1. Whether the trial judge erred in law and fact in dismissing the appellant's application for review on the basis that the letter dated 14 July 1998 was not the discovery of a new and important matter of evidence.
  2. If the first issue is answered in the affirmative, what is its effect on the judgment.

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed.
  • Costs of the appeal awarded to the respondent.

Key headnotes

Civil Procedure — Review of Judgment — Newly Discovered Evidence
An applicant seeking review of a judgment on the ground of newly discovered evidence must strictly prove under Order 46 rule 3(2) of the Civil Procedure Rules that the evidence was not within his knowledge and could not be produced when the decree was passed, and that the application is brought without unreasonable delay.
Evidence — Documentary Evidence — Authenticity of Newly Produced Document
A document tendered as newly discovered evidence will be rejected where it is a mere photocopy from an unverified source, is unsupported by any affidavit confirming the circumstances of its discovery, and surfaces years after the decree.
Civil Procedure — Discovery of Documents — Order 10 rule 12
A party who believes a relevant document is in the opposing party's possession should apply for discovery of documents under Order 10 rule 12 of the Civil Procedure Rules; failure to do so undermines a later claim that such a document exists.

Legislation cited (4)

  • Civil Procedure Act s.82
  • Civil Procedure Rules Order 46 rule 1
  • Civil Procedure Rules Order 46 rule 3(2)
  • Civil Procedure Rules Order 10 rule 12

Cases cited (3)

  • Nakivubo Chemists (U) Ltd (1979) HCB 12
  • ULC v James Mark Kamoga (Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 8 of 2004)
  • Muyodi v. Industrial and Commercial Development Corporation and another
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.