Ali Singer v Margaret Nankabirwa (Civil Appeal 3 of 2016)

Supreme Court · [2019] UGSC 56 · 2019 Appeal Dismissed ✦ AI-generated summary ↓ Download

Jurisdiction

Uganda

Case Type

Second civil appeal from a decision of the Court of Appeal dismissing the appellant's first appeal against the High Court

Decision

Appeal dismissed; the appellant's claim for UGX 11,000,000 failed and no costs were awarded.

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 dismissed the appellant's second appeal claiming UGX 11,000,000 in unpaid wages for supervising the respondent's construction work. Although the Court of Appeal erred in holding that the supporting witness's evidence required corroboration — no such requirement exists under the Evidence Act — that error was not fatal. The appellant bore the burden of proving the alleged oral agreement and failed to discharge it: his own demand letter omitted the sum and stated he was owed nothing, he had not completed the work, and he adduced no evidence of amounts received and paid out. The Court Act 2010 did not apply as the cause arose in 1999, governed by the repealed Contract Act Cap 73.

Facts

In 1999 the appellant agreed orally to supervise construction work for the respondent on two houses in Kisenyi and Nsambya. The appellant claimed the respondent agreed to pay him UGX 11,000,000 for his services, payable on completion of the buildings, while also paying daily wages to the porters and masons whom he paid on the respondent's behalf. The respondent denied any such agreement, asserting the appellant was paid alongside the other workers on a daily basis. The appellant left the Nsambya site before construction was completed, allegedly due to loss of building materials; the work was finished in 2001 after his departure. A demand letter from the appellant's lawyer (Exhibit D2) listed various demands but did not include the UGX 11,000,000 and stated the appellant had never demanded money from the respondent. The appellant sued in the High Court in 2005; the suit was dismissed, as was his first appeal to the Court of Appeal. He appealed to the Supreme Court.

Issues

Whether the respondent agreed to pay the appellant UGX 11,000,000 for supervising her construction work and owed him that sum.
Whether the evidence of a supporting witness (PW2) required corroboration before the court could rely on it.
Whether inconsistencies in the respondent's and her witness's evidence were material to the central issue of indebtedness.
Whether the respondent was under a duty to call her husband as a witness.
Whether the Contract Act 2010 or the repealed Contract Act Cap 73 governed the appellant's claim.

Orders

Appeal dismissed.
Each party to bear their respective costs in this Court and in the courts below.
No order as to costs.

Key headnotes

Evidence — Corroboration — Whether supporting witness evidence requires corroboration

There is no requirement under the Evidence Act that the evidence of a supporting witness must be corroborated before a court can rely on it, even where that evidence is found not to be cogent.

Evidence — Burden of proof — Party asserting a fact

A party who asserts a particular fact must prove it; under sections 101 and 102 of the Evidence Act the burden of proof lies on the party who would fail if no evidence were adduced on either side.

Evidence — Number of witnesses — Section 133 Evidence Act

No particular number of witnesses is required to prove any fact; once a party selects the witnesses needed to prove or disprove a fact, neither the opposite party nor the court can fault that party for failing to call any other witness.

Statutory Interpretation — Temporal application — Repealed Contract Act Cap 73 v Contract Act 2010

A contractual claim is governed by the law in force at the time the cause of action arose and the suit was filed; where the cause arose in 1999 and the suit was filed in 2005, the repealed Contract Act Cap 73 applies and not the Contract Act 2010.

Civil Procedure — First appellate court — Duty to re-evaluate evidence

A first appellate court has a duty to re-evaluate the evidence on record and arrive at its own conclusion, and can only be faulted in respect of how it carried out that duty.

Evidence — Admissions — Demand letter not written without prejudice

A party is bound by his own demand letter; where a demand letter not written on a without prejudice basis omits the sum claimed and states that no money is owed, it extinguishes the claim in the absence of any plausible explanation.

Legislation cited (7)

Contract Act 2010 s.10(b)
Contract Act Cap 73 (repealed)
Evidence Act s.101
Evidence Act s.102
Evidence Act s.133
Civil Procedure Act Cap 71 s.27(2)
Civil Procedure Rules S.I. 71-1 Order 16 rule 1

Cases cited (2)

Kifamunte Henry v Uganda (Criminal Appeal No. 10 of 1997)
Kananura Andrew Kansiime v Richard H. Kaijuka (Civil Reference No. 15 of 2016)

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.