Arinaitwe and Anor v Lugarama and 4 Others (Miscellaneous Application 592 of 2023)

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.

Holding

The court dismissed the application for handwriting samples. Where a party already possesses admitted or proved handwriting samples of the person whose signature is disputed, Section 72(1) of the Evidence Act permits comparison using those existing samples. The applicants had already received Police Form 17A containing the respondents' signatures and could use those for their independent expert analysis. Section 72(2), which allows the court to direct a person to write samples, is discretionary and unnecessary where adequate comparative samples already exist.

Outcome

Application for handwriting samples dismissed; applicants directed to use existing samples already in their possession for independent forensic analysis

Facts

The applicants, as administrator and purchaser of estate land, claimed they sold land and paid proceeds to beneficiaries including the respondents, who acknowledged receipt by signing documents. The respondents denied signing the acknowledgements and reported forgery to police. Police obtained handwriting samples (Form 17A) and conducted forensic analysis. The applicants obtained a court order directing that original documents be availed to them, which was complied with. The applicants then sought an order directing the respondents to provide fresh handwriting samples for a second independent expert opinion, claiming the police analyst may have been compromised. The respondents objected, stating the applicants should use the same samples police used (Form 17A), which had already been provided to the applicants.

Issues

1. Whether the respondents should be directed to provide handwriting samples for comparison with disputed acknowledgements and signatures on land sale agreements.
2. Whether Section 72(1) of the Evidence Act permits handwriting comparison using samples already in the applicants' possession from police records.

Orders

• Application dismissed.
• Costs of the application awarded to the respondents.

Rules and key headnotes

Legislation cited (6)

• Evidence Act s.43
• Evidence Act s.66
• Evidence Act s.72
• Evidence Act s.72(1)
• Evidence Act s.72(2)
• Civil Procedure Rules Order 52 Rules 1, 2 & 3

Cases cited (1)

• Aziz Kalungi Kasujja v Naune Tebekanya Nakakande (Supreme Court Criminal Appeal No. 63 of 1995)

The original judgment as reported. Read the original PDF before relying on any passage.