Wakilii

Kawooya v National Council For Higher Education (Miscellaneous Application 8 of 2013)

Supreme Court · [2014] UGSC 400 · 2014 Application Granted ✦ AI-generated summary ↓ Download
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Application for leave to adduce additional evidence in a pending constitutional appeal before the Supreme Court.
Decision
Application for leave to adduce additional evidence allowed; applicant directed to file the additional evidence within 7 days.

The full judgment

Read the complete, verbatim text of this judgment.

Sign in to read the full 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 granted the applicant leave to adduce additional evidence (a letter directing withdrawal of her degree) in a pending constitutional appeal. Applying the exceptional-circumstances principles from Attorney General v Ssemwogerere (drawn from Ladd v Marshall and related authorities), the Court found the evidence was newly discovered after due diligence, having been in the respondent's sole possession; was relevant to whether the respondent withdrew her qualification without a hearing; was credible; would probably influence the appeal's outcome; was supported by proof attached to the affidavit; and was brought without undue delay. The Court declined the prayer for leave to file a supplementary record of appeal, holding that Rule 86(1) permits a respondent to lodge one without leave.

Facts

In December 2005 the National Council for Higher Education (NCHE) issued the applicant a Certificate of Equivalence confirming her academic qualification to contest parliamentary elections. In August 2010 NCHE recalled and cancelled the certificate. The applicant's constitutional petition challenging that decision succeeded in the Constitutional Court, and NCHE appealed to the Supreme Court (Constitutional Appeal No. 4 of 2011). While that appeal was pending, the applicant sought leave to adduce a letter (Annexure C7) on NCHE's headed paper, signed by its Deputy Executive Director, directing Nkumba University to withdraw the degree it had awarded her. She averred the letter had been in NCHE's sole possession and that she only learned of it through her new counsel following separate election-petition proceedings in which it had been tendered. The letter went to whether NCHE had taken a final decision to cancel her qualification without affording her a hearing, a live issue in the pending appeal.

Issues

  1. Whether the applicant satisfied the principles governing the admission of additional evidence on appeal so as to warrant the grant of leave to adduce the additional evidence.
  2. Whether the applicant required the leave of the Court to file a supplementary record of appeal.

Orders

  • Application allowed.
  • Applicant directed to file the additional evidence within 7 days from the date of the ruling.
  • Prayer for leave to file a supplementary record of appeal declined.
  • Costs to abide the determination of the appeal.

Key headnotes

Evidence — Additional Evidence on Appeal — Conditions for Admission
An appellate court may exercise its discretion to admit additional evidence only in exceptional circumstances: the evidence must be newly discovered and not obtainable with due diligence at trial, relevant to the issues, credible, capable of probably influencing the result though it need not be decisive, supported by proof attached to the affidavit, and the application must be brought without undue delay.
Evidence — Additional Evidence — Due Diligence — Evidence in Opposing Party's Sole Possession
The due-diligence requirement for admitting additional evidence is satisfied where the evidence sought to be adduced was within the sole possession and knowledge of the opposing party, since even a meticulous litigant could not have obtained it at the time of the original proceedings.
Civil Procedure — Supplementary Record of Appeal — Leave Not Required
A respondent who considers the record of appeal defective or insufficient for the purposes of its case may lodge a supplementary record of appeal under Rule 86(1) of the Judicature (Supreme Court) Rules without seeking the leave of the Court.

Legislation cited (5)

  • Judicature (Supreme Court) Rules r.30(2)(a)
  • Judicature (Supreme Court) Rules r.2(2)
  • Judicature (Supreme Court) Rules r.86(1)
  • Judicature (Supreme Court) Rules r.86(2)
  • Constitutional Court (Petitions and Reference) Rules 2005 r.23(2)

Cases cited (12)

  • Attorney General v Ssemwogerere & 2 Others (Constitutional Application No. 2 of 2004)
  • Joy Kabatsi v Anifa Kawooya & Anor (Election Petition Appeal No. 25 of 2007)
  • Joy Kabatsi v Anifa Kawooya & Electoral Commission (Election Petition No. 1 of 2006)
  • Birekeraawo Nsubuga v Muyanja Mbabali (Election Petition No. 0006 of 2011)
  • Ladd v Marshall (1954) 3 All ER 745
  • Skone v Skone (1971) 2 All ER 582
  • Langdale v Danby (1982) 3 All ER 129
  • Sadrudin Shariff v Tarlochan Singh (1961) EA 72
  • Elgood v Regina (1968) EA 274
  • American Express International v Atulkimar S. Patel (Application No. 8B of 1986)
  • Karmali v Lakhani (1958) EA 567
  • Corbett (1953), 2 ALL ER, 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.