Wakilii

Micheal Mabikke v Law Development Centre (Miscellaneous Application 16 of 2015)

Supreme Court · [2020] UGSC 1 · 2020 Application Dismissed ✦ AI-generated summary ↓ Download
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Application by notice of motion in the Supreme Court to adduce additional evidence in a pending civil appeal
Decision
Application to adduce additional evidence dismissed with costs to the respondent

The full judgment

Read the complete, verbatim text of this judgment.

Sign in to read the full judgment
Cited — treatment unverified cited in 3 (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 held that although under rule 30 it has no general discretion to take additional evidence on a civil appeal, its inherent power under rule 2(2) of its Rules permits it to admit such evidence to meet the ends of justice, subject to the exceptional conditions in Ladd v Marshall and Semogerere. Applying those conditions, the Court refused the application: the report and minutes the applicant sought to adduce concerned events (the Sub-Committee report and the cancellation of his diploma) that post-dated the lower court proceedings, did not elucidate the audit report that was before those courts, and were aimed at pursuing new issues and causes of action. The application was dismissed with costs.

Facts

The applicant, a legal practitioner, was awarded a post-graduate diploma in legal practice by the respondent in 2010. Allegations of examination malpractice for the 2004/2005 to 2010/2011 academic years led the respondent to commission a forensic audit and later a sub-committee inquiry. In 2013 the applicant and others sought judicial review in the High Court to quash the forensic audit report and stop the inquiry; the High Court declined the reliefs and the Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal. The applicant lodged a notice of appeal in the Supreme Court. While that appeal was pending, the respondent's Management Committee, sitting in February 2016, resolved to cancel the applicant's diploma, a decision he learnt of through a press release. He then applied to adduce, as additional evidence, the Sub-Committee's report dated 30 November 2015 and the minutes of the relevant committee proceedings, contending they were new, credible and unavailable earlier. The respondent opposed the application.

Issues

  1. Whether the Supreme Court has power to take additional evidence on a civil appeal originating as a second appeal.
  2. Whether the circumstances of the application disclosed the exceptional conditions warranting the admission of additional evidence on appeal.
  3. Whether the proposed evidence was new, credible, unavailable with reasonable diligence at the lower courts, and capable of influencing the result of the appeal.

Orders

  • The application to adduce additional evidence is dismissed.
  • Costs of the application are awarded to the respondent.

Key headnotes

Appeals — Additional Evidence on Appeal — Inherent Power under Rule 2(2) of the Supreme Court Rules
Although rule 30 of the Supreme Court Rules denies the Court general discretion to take additional evidence on a civil appeal, the inherent power preserved by rule 2(2) enables the Court, as the final appellate court, to admit additional evidence where necessary to achieve the ends of justice, notwithstanding the prohibition in another rule.
Additional Evidence — Conditions for Admission — Ladd v Marshall Principles
Additional evidence on appeal may be admitted only where the evidence could not have been obtained with reasonable diligence for use at trial, is credible, and would probably have an important (though not decisive) influence on the result, and the application is brought without undue delay.
Additional Evidence — Evidence of Post-Decision Events — Elucidation Requirement
Evidence of events that occurred only after the lower courts disposed of the case, which does not elucidate the evidence already on record but is directed at raising new issues or causes of action, does not satisfy the exceptional conditions for admitting additional evidence on appeal.
Affidavits — Form and Content — Order 19 rule 3 Civil Procedure Rules
An affidavit must be confined to evidence of facts and must not be argumentative, prolix or used to advance the grounds of an application; grounds belong in the notice of motion, not the supporting affidavit.

Legislation cited (27)

  • Constitution of Uganda art.26
  • Constitution of Uganda art.28
  • Constitution of Uganda art.40(2)
  • Constitution of Uganda art.42
  • Constitution of Uganda art.44(c)
  • Constitution of Uganda art.126(1)
  • Constitution of Uganda art.126(2)(e)
  • Judicature Act s.4
  • Judicature Act s.7
  • Judicature Act s.11
  • Judicature Act s.33
  • Judicature Act s.41
  • Judicature Act s.42
  • Civil Procedure Act s.80(1)(d)
  • Civil Procedure Act s.98
  • Judicature (Judicial Review) Rules 2009
  • Judicature (Supreme Court) Rules Directions r.2(2)
  • Judicature (Supreme Court) Rules Directions r.30(2)(a)
  • Judicature (Supreme Court) Rules Directions r.42(1)
  • Judicature (Supreme Court) Rules Directions r.42(2)
  • Judicature (Supreme Court) Rules Directions r.43(1)
  • Judicature (Supreme Court) Rules Directions r.43(2)
  • Judicature (Supreme Court) Rules Directions r.44
  • Judicature (Supreme Court) Rules Directions r.86(3)
  • Law Development Centre Act s.16(1)
  • Rules Governing the Passing of the Bar Course 2010 r.21(2)
  • Civil Procedure Rules Order 19 r.3

Cases cited (14)

  • Attorney General and Inspector General of Government v Afric Cooperative Society Ltd (Miscellaneous Application No. 6 of 2012)
  • GM Combined Limited v A.K. Detergents (Civil Appeal No. 7 of 1998)
  • Attorney General v The East African Law Society & Anor (Appeal No. 1 of 2013)
  • Anifa Kawooya Bangirana v National Council for Higher Education (Miscellaneous Application No. 8 of 2013)
  • General Industries (U) Ltd v Nonperforming Assets Recovery Trust [1999] KALR 400
  • Attorney General v Paul Kawanga Semogerere & Ors (Constitutional Application No. 2 of 2004)
  • V Habre Bantariza International Trading Co Ltd [2002] 2 EA 315 (SCU) at pp 319-320
  • R v Sirasi Bachumira (1936) 3 EACA 40
  • Horizon Coaches Ltd v Rurangaranga & Anor [2010] 1 EA 77 (SCU)
  • Ladd v Marshall [1954] 3 All ER 745
  • Skone v Skone [1971] 2 All ER 582
  • Karmali Tarmohamed & Company v Lakhani & Anor (1958) EA 567
  • Commissioner Land Registration & Anor v Emmanuel Lukwajju (Civil Application No. 12 of 2016)
  • Male Mabirizi Kiwanuka v Attorney General (Constitutional Appeal No. 2 of 2018)
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.