Commissioner Land Registration & Anor v Lukwajju (Civil Application 12 of 2016)

Supreme Court · [2017] UGSC 5 · 2017 Application Granted ✦ AI-generated summary ↓ Download

Jurisdiction

Uganda

Case Type

Application in a pending Supreme Court civil appeal for leave to adduce additional evidence

Decision

Application allowed; leave granted to adduce the additional evidence, to be filed within 7 days

The full judgment

Read the complete, verbatim text of this judgment.

Cited — treatment unverified cited in 5 (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 applicants sought leave to adduce additional evidence — a 1916 Indenture, a 1926 Conveyance and an extract of a Succession Register — to elucidate the record in a pending land appeal. Although Rule 30(1) gives the Supreme Court no discretion to take additional evidence in civil appeals, the Court held that Rule 2(2) preserves its inherent power to do so in exceptional circumstances to meet the ends of justice. Applying the six principles from Semwogerere and Afric Cooperative Society, the Court found the documents were newly discovered despite due diligence, relevant, credible (emanating from the land registry), capable of influencing the result, proved by affidavit, and sought without delay. The application was allowed.

Facts

The respondent, as administrator of the estate of his great-grandfather Erasito Mazinga, sued the applicants in the High Court (Jinja Civil Suit No. 172 of 2012) claiming that the second applicant was a trespasser on land at Lwanyonyi, Kyaggwe. He alleged the land had been granted to Mazinga by the Buganda Kingdom in 1909 and registered as Mailo, then illegally converted to freehold under Crown Grant No. 11467 in 1926. The High Court found for the respondent, ordering cancellation of the second applicant's freehold title and issuance of a Mailo certificate. The Court of Appeal reversed that decision and restored the freehold title to the second applicant. The respondent appealed to the Supreme Court (Civil Appeal No. 2 of 2016). When the appeal came up for hearing, the first applicant sought an adjournment to apply for leave to adduce additional evidence comprising a 1916 Indenture, a 1926 Conveyance and an extract of a Succession Register, said to have been discovered after the lower-court judgments during the computerisation of land records.

Issues

Whether the applicants satisfied the principles for the grant of leave to adduce additional evidence in a pending civil appeal.
Whether the Succession Register could be admitted as additional evidence where no specific leave had been sought in respect of it.

Orders

Application allowed.
The applicants to file the Indenture in respect of Crown Grant No. 11467, the Conveyance in respect of FRV 3 Folio 13, and the extract of Succession Register No. 1045/34 within 7 days of the Ruling.
Costs of the application to abide the outcome of the appeal.

Key headnotes

Civil Procedure — Appeals — Additional Evidence — Inherent Powers under Rule 2(2)

Although Rule 30(1) of the Rules of the Supreme Court denies the Court discretion to take additional evidence in civil appeals, Rule 2(2) preserves the Court's inherent power to admit additional evidence in exceptional circumstances where it elucidates evidence already on record and is necessary to meet the ends of justice.

Evidence — Additional Evidence on Appeal — Conditions for Admission

An appellate court may admit additional evidence only in exceptional circumstances, namely where the evidence is new and important and could not have been produced with due diligence, is relevant to the issues, is credible and capable of belief, would probably influence the result though it need not be decisive, is proved by attachment to the supporting affidavit, and the application is brought without undue delay.

Land & Property — Land Registry — Credibility of Registry Records

The land registry is a public office charged with the administration of land and is an authority on the ownership and history of registered land; its records are generally the most credible and capable of belief on issues of land ownership in the absence of evidence to the contrary.

Legislation cited (5)

Judicature Act s.7
Rules of the Supreme Court rule 2(2)
Rules of the Supreme Court rule 30(1)
Rules of the Supreme Court rule 42
Rules of the Supreme Court rule 43

Cases cited (2)

Attorney General and Inspector General of Government v Afric Cooperative Society Ltd (Miscellaneous Application No. 6 of 2012)
Attorney General v Paul Kawanga Semwogerere and Another (Constitutional Application No. 2 of 2004)

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.