AC Yafeng Construction Company Limited v Living Word Assembly Limited and Others (Miscellaneous Application No. 2883 of 2025)
Observed later treatment
No later-treatment classification is recorded for this judgment.
Citator coverage is limited to judgments in the Wakilii corpus and source-matched treatment records. Absence of a signal is not an assertion that the case remains 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 High Court dismissed an application for discovery of correspondence and bank statements in a fraud and breach of contract suit. The court held that the applicant's request was speculative and amounted to a fishing expedition, as the existence and possession of the sought documents could not be verified. The court further held that ordering disclosure of bank statements risked violating the respondents' constitutional right to privacy under Article 27(2) where the transactions were not proven to relate solely to the contract in dispute.
Outcome
Application for discovery dismissed
Facts
On 16 September 2019, the applicant construction company entered a contract with the first respondent church to construct a 10,000-seater prayer city project. The applicant provided performance and advance payment guarantees totalling over UGX 10 billion through the third respondent bank. On 24 December 2020, the first respondent terminated the contract. The first respondent then called on both guarantees and the third respondent paid out over UGX 10 billion on 19 March 2021, after an interim injunction was vacated. The applicant filed a main suit alleging fraud, conspiracy, and breach of fiduciary duty. In this interlocutory application, the applicant sought discovery of correspondence between the respondents and bank statements to prove the alleged conspiracy and the first respondent's lack of financial capacity. The respondents filed no affidavits in reply.
Issues
- Whether the Court should grant an order for the discovery of the documents?
- What remedies are available to the parties?
Orders
- Application dismissed.
- No order as to costs.
Rules and key headnotes
Legislation cited (13)
- Judicature Act Cap.13 s.33
- Judicature Act Cap.16 s.37
- Civil Procedure Act Cap.71 s.22
- Civil Procedure Act Cap.71 s.98
- Civil Procedure Act Cap.282 s.22
- Civil Procedure Rules SI 71-1 Order 10 rule 12
- Civil Procedure Rules SI 71-1 Order 10 rule 14
- Civil Procedure Rules SI 71-1 Order 10 rule 24
- Evidence Act Cap.8 s.101
- Evidence Act Cap.8 s.102
- Evidence Act Cap.8 s.103
- Evidence Act Cap.8 s.104
- Constitution of the Republic of Uganda 1995 Article 27(2)
Cases cited (8)
- AKT Project Management Limited and 2 Others v DFCU Bank Limited (2024 UGCommC 248)
- Simbamanyo Estates Limited & Another v Equity Bank Uganda Limited and 4 Others (Miscellaneous Application No. 583 of 2022)
- Dresdner Bank AG v Sango Bay Estates Ltd (No.4) [1971] 1 EA 409
- John Kato v Muhlbauer A.G and Another (High Court Miscellaneous Application No. 175 of 2011)
- William Akankwasa v Registrar of Titles (HCMA No. 33 of 2008)
- John Bwiza v Patrick Yowasi Kadama (Court of Appeal Civil Appeal No. 35 of 2011)
- Patricia Mutesi v Attorney General (HCMA No. 912 of 2016)
- Kaweesi Sulaiman and 26 Others v Bank of Uganda and Another (HCMA No. 258 of 2022)
Full judgment
The original judgment as reported. Read the original PDF before relying on any passage.