Wakilii

G.M Combined Limited v A.K Detergents Uganda Limited (Civil Appeal 7 of 1998)

Supreme Court · [2000] UGSC 9 · 2000 Appeal Dismissed ✦ AI-generated summary ↓ Download
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Second appeal to the Supreme Court from a Court of Appeal decision that reversed the High Court
Decision
Appeal dismissed; the Court of Appeal's dismissal of the appellant's suit and its orders confirmed

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 Supreme Court dismissed a second appeal challenging the Court of Appeal's reception of a sale agreement as additional evidence. It held that rule 29(1)(b) of the Court of Appeal Rules permits an appellate court, for sufficient reason and in exceptional cases, to take additional evidence on its own motion. The sale agreement was not new evidence but elucidation of the transfer instrument already on record, which expressly referred to it; incorporation by reference made the two read together. No real likelihood of bias arose. The appellant's withdrawal of its appeals against the second to fifth respondents foreclosed the grounds attacking the receivers' authority and the registration, leaving no fraud established against the first respondent.

Facts

The appellant, G.M Combined (U) Ltd, owned seven leasehold properties at Mbuya and operated a soap factory financed by loans from the second and fifth respondents (DFCU and Uganda Development Bank). The loans were secured by debentures and mortgages registered at the Companies Registry but not at the Lands Registry. The debentures empowered the lenders to appoint receivers/managers on default. The appellant defaulted, and the lenders appointed the third and fourth respondents as joint receivers/managers, who within three months sold the suit lands to the first respondent, A.K Detergent Ltd, under a sale agreement dated 21 March 1994. The first respondent was registered as proprietor on the strength of transfer instruments executed by the receivers. The appellant sued in the High Court to cancel the first respondent's titles, alleging the transfers were unlawful and fraudulent. The High Court found fraud and ordered cancellation; the Court of Appeal reversed, finding the transfers effectual and no fraud, after admitting the sale agreement (which the transfer instruments referenced) as additional evidence on its own motion. The appellant appealed to the Supreme Court but withdrew its appeals against the second to fifth respondents.

Issues

  1. Whether the Court of Appeal could, on its own motion and without an application by a party under rule 29 of the Court of Appeal Rules, take additional evidence on appeal.
  2. Whether the Court of Appeal's reception of the sale agreement as additional evidence denied the appellant a fair hearing or established a real likelihood of bias.
  3. Whether the sale agreement was admissible additional evidence or inadmissible parol and extrinsic evidence varying the transfer instrument.
  4. Whether the appellant could pursue grounds attacking the receivers' authority and the registration after withdrawing its appeals against the second to fifth respondents.

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed.
  • Costs of the appeal awarded to the respondent in this Court and in the courts below.

Key headnotes

Civil Procedure — Appeals — Additional Evidence — Reception on the court's own motion
Under rule 29(1)(b) of the Court of Appeal Rules an appellate court may, for sufficient reason and in exceptional circumstances, take additional evidence on its own motion without an application by a party.
Evidence — Documentary Evidence — Incorporation of an annexure by reference
A reference in a document to an annexure incorporates the contents of the annexure into the document, so that the document and the annexure must be read together.
Evidence — Additional Evidence on Appeal — Elucidation of evidence on record distinguished from new evidence
Evidence received on appeal merely to elucidate evidence already on the record is not new evidence and may be admitted, as distinct from new matter introduced to fill a gap in a party's case.
Constitutional Law — Fair Hearing — Bias — Real likelihood test
A real likelihood of bias is determined by the impression given to right-minded persons rather than by examining the judge's actual mind; mere surmise or conjecture is insufficient, and the lawful exercise of a discretion to call evidence is not, of itself, evidence of bias.
Land & Property — Registration of Titles — Impeachment of title for fraud
Under section 184 of the Registration of Titles Act a registered proprietor's title may be impeached only on proof of fraud brought home to that proprietor; absent such fraud the certificate of title is an absolute bar to an action for recovery of the land.
Contract Law — Consideration — Adequacy not inquired into
A court will not inquire into the sufficiency or adequacy of consideration so long as some consideration exists.
Civil Procedure — Appeals — Withdrawal — Effect on remaining grounds
Where an appellant withdraws and the appeals against certain respondents are consequently dismissed, the appellant cannot afterwards argue grounds that depend on or impugn the findings affecting those dismissed parties.

Legislation cited (14)

  • Court of Appeal Rules r.29
  • Court of Appeal Rules r.97
  • Court of Appeal Rules r.101(d)
  • Rules of the Supreme Court r.81
  • Registration of Titles Act s.3
  • Registration of Titles Act s.51
  • Registration of Titles Act s.91
  • Registration of Titles Act s.138
  • Registration of Titles Act s.154(1)
  • Registration of Titles Act s.184
  • Companies Act s.96(6)
  • Companies Act s.103(1)
  • Evidence Act s.105
  • Constitution of Uganda art.28

Cases cited (24)

  • Taylor v Taylor (1944) 21 EACA 46
  • Karmali Tarmohamed v Lakhani & Co (1958) EA 567
  • Corbett v Corbett (1953) 2 All ER 72
  • Magidu Mudasi v. Uganda SCU Uganda Criminal Appeal No.3 1998
  • Jones v National Coal Board (1957) 2 QB 55
  • Libyan Arab Uganda Bank for Foreign Trade and Development v Vassiliadis (Civil Appeal No. 9 of 1985)
  • United Marketing Co v Hasham Kara (1963) EA 276
  • Sadrudin Shariff v Tarlochan Singh (1961) EA 72
  • Chappell & Co Ltd v Nestle Co Ltd [1960] AC 87
  • David Sejjaaka Nalima v Rebecca Musoke (Civil Appeal No. 12 of 1985)
  • Castelino v Rodrigues (1972) EA 223
  • R v Yakobo Busigo s/o Mavego (1945) 12 EACA 60
  • R v Robinson (1917) 2 KB 1098
  • R v Sirasi Bachumira (1936) 3 EACA 40
  • Metropolitan Properties Co (FGC) Ltd v Lannon [1969] 1 QB 577
  • Isaac N Ojok v Uganda (Criminal Appeal No. 33 of 1991)
  • Dharansy Morarji v Summen Naresh (Civil Application No. 22 of 1996)
  • Mbogo v Shah (1968) EA 93
  • Elgood v R (1968) EA 274
  • Mohindra v Mohindra (1955) 22 EACA 274
  • Jeraj Sharif & Co v Shota Fancy Stores (1960) EA 374
  • Tumaini v Republic (1972) EA 441
  • R v Sussex Justices, ex parte McCarthy (1924) 1 KB 256
  • R v Barnsley Licensing Justices, ex parte Barnsley & District Licensed Victuallers Association [1960] 2 QB 167
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.