American Express International Banking Corporation v Atulkumar Sumant Patel (Civil Application 8 of 1986)

Supreme Court · [1989] UGSC 13 · 1989 Application Dismissed ✦ AI-generated summary ↓ Download

Jurisdiction

Uganda

Case Type

Reference to the full Supreme Court under rule 5 from a single Judge's order refusing leave to adduce additional evidence

Decision

Reference to the full Court dismissed; order of the single Judge refusing additional evidence affirmed

The full judgment

Read the complete, verbatim text of this 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

On a reference to the full Court from a single Judge's refusal of leave to adduce additional evidence, the Supreme Court held that the discretion to receive additional evidence for "sufficient reason" under rule 29(1)(b) is not unfettered. Evidence that was in the parties' possession at trial, or that could have been obtained by proper diligence, will not be admitted on appeal where the case was decided adversely to the party who had the evidence available. The further details the applicant sought to add were known to its advisers at the time of the original hearing and merely clarified an existing affidavit, so no sufficient reason existed. The reference was dismissed with costs.

Facts

The applicant bank had sued the respondent in the High Court (H.C.C.S. No. 451 of 1983) alleging liability under an unlimited guarantee for more than UGX 302 million. After pleadings closed, the respondent moved to dismiss or stay the suit as vexatious, arguing the contract originated in Singapore and the dispute should be litigated there. The trial Judge stayed the proceedings on 24 February 1985, and the applicant appealed. Before the appeal was heard, the applicant sought leave to adduce additional evidence — further details from a Singapore advocate's affidavit concerning whether the respondent would submit to Singapore's jurisdiction, waive a limitation defence, and satisfy any Singapore judgment. These matters were known to the applicant's advisers when the stay motion was heard but were not then put forward. A single Judge refused leave on 7 November 1986, and the applicant referred the matter to the full Court.

Issues

Whether the applicant should be granted leave under rule 29(1)(b) of the Court of Appeal Rules to adduce additional evidence on appeal.

Orders

Reference dismissed.
Costs of the reference to the respondent.

Key headnotes

Appeals — Additional Evidence — Discretion under Rule 29(1)(b) — "Sufficient Reason"

The discretion to receive additional evidence on appeal for "sufficient reason" under rule 29(1)(b) of the Court of Appeal Rules is not entirely unfettered; the indulgence may be granted only for some good reason beyond mere humane considerations.

Additional Evidence on Appeal — Evidence Available at Trial by Proper Diligence

Where evidence was in a party's possession at trial, or could by proper diligence have been obtained, and the case was decided adversely to that party, the evidence will not be admitted by way of additional evidence on appeal; otherwise there would be no end to litigation.

Legislation cited (3)

Court of Appeal Rules rule 29(1)(b)
Court of Appeal Rules rule 5
Court of Appeal Rules rule 4

Cases cited (3)

Nyanzi v Kayima (Civil Appeal No. 67 of 1955)
KARMALI V. LAKHANI (1958) E.A. 567
CORBETT Vs CORBETT (1955) 2 ALL E.R. 69 on p.72

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.