American Express International Banking Corporation v Atulkina (Civil Application 8 of 1986)

Supreme Court · [1989] UGSC 8 · 1989 Reference Dismissed ✦ AI-generated summary ↓ Download

Jurisdiction

Uganda

Case Type

Reference to the Full Court under rule 54 of the Court of Appeal Rules from a single Justice's order refusing leave to adduce additional evidence on appeal

Decision

Reference to the Full Court dismissed; the single Justice's refusal to admit additional evidence upheld

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

The Supreme Court, sitting as the Full Court on a reference under rule 54, held that the additional evidence the applicant sought to adduce — further clarification of a Singapore advocate's affidavit on the law and procedure applicable in Singapore — was within the knowledge of the applicant's advisers at the time of the original hearing and could have been produced then. As the discretion under rule 29(1)(b) to receive additional evidence for sufficient reason does not extend to evidence that proper diligence would have obtained earlier, there was no special reason to admit it. The court agreed with the single Justice and dismissed the reference with costs.

Facts

The applicant bank sued the respondent in the High Court (H.C.C.S. No. 459 of 1983) claiming the respondent was liable under an unlimited guarantee for more than UGX 302 million. After pleadings closed, the respondent moved to have the suit dismissed or stayed as vexatious, arguing the contract originated in Singapore and the dispute should be litigated there. The applicant opposed the stay, relying on an affidavit of a Singapore advocate, Mr. Singham, setting out the procedural and financial difficulties of suing in Singapore. The trial judge stayed the proceedings, and the applicant appealed. Before the appeal was heard, the applicant sought leave to adduce additional evidence — further clarification by Mr. Singham as to whether the respondent would submit to Singapore's jurisdiction, waive limitation, and satisfy any judgment. These matters were known to the applicant's advisers when the stay was argued but were not put forward. A single Justice refused leave, and the applicant referred that order 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

Civil Procedure — Appeals — Additional Evidence — Sufficient Reason under Rule 29(1)(b)

The discretion to take additional evidence on appeal for sufficient reason is not unfettered; leave will not be granted where the evidence was in the party's possession, or could by proper diligence have been obtained, at the time of the original hearing and was not produced.

Evidence — Fresh Evidence on Appeal — Clarification of Existing Material Not a Special Reason

Evidence offered merely to clarify or amplify an affidavit already before the trial court, on matters known to the party's advisers at the time, does not amount to a special reason for receiving additional evidence on appeal.

Legislation cited (3)

Court of Appeal Rules rule 29(1)(b)
Court of Appeal Rules rule 54
Court of Appeal Rules rule 4

Cases cited (3)

Kyanzi v Kayima (Civil Appeal No. 67 of 1953)
Karmali v Lakhaji (1958) E.A. 567
Corbett v Corbett [1953] 2 All E.R. 69

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.