Wakilii

Attorney General v Paul K. Ssemogerere and Ors (Constitutional Application 2 of 2004)

Supreme Court · [2004] UGSC 3 · 2004 Application Dismissed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Application to the Supreme Court to recall and review its judgment in a concluded constitutional appeal, by way of an oral application for leave to adduce additional evidence
Decision
Both the oral application for leave to adduce additional evidence and the motion to recall the judgment dismissed with costs to the respondents

Observed later treatment

Treatment recorded in citing cases followed in 11 · applied in 1 Sequitur — Uganda’s citator · Derived from citing cases in the Wakilii corpus — not an assertion that this case is good law.

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.

Good law Followed in 11 cases and applied in 1 case, with no adverse treatment recorded. Citations steady — 30 citing cases on record, 7 in the most recent three data years. Derived from citing cases in the Wakilii corpus — a deterministic signal, not legal advice.

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 Attorney General sought leave to adduce additional evidence (the Hansard and the Speaker's Certificate) and to recall the Supreme Court's judgment annulling the Constitution (Amendment) Act 2000, blaming the prior non-production of the evidence on counsel's incompetence. The Court held that additional evidence may be admitted only in exceptional circumstances and that the evidence was available and could, with due diligence, have been produced at trial or on appeal. The application, brought several months after judgment, was tainted by undue delay and was not solely attributable to one counsel. The oral application failed, and as it was the sole basis for the motion to recall the judgment, that motion also failed.

Outcome

Both the oral application for leave to adduce additional evidence and the motion to recall the judgment dismissed with costs to the respondents

Facts

Following the Supreme Court's judgment of 29 January 2004 in Constitutional Appeal No. 1 of 2002, which annulled amendments to Articles 88, 89, 90 and 257 made by the Constitution (Amendment) Act 2000, the Attorney General applied to recall and reverse that judgment. The Court had annulled the amendments because the Bill was passed without the head-count voting method and was not accompanied by the Speaker's Certificate showing compliance with Chapter 18 of the Constitution. The applicant sought to adduce additional evidence — the Hansard showing head-count voting and the Speaker's Certificate — contending these documents had not been produced earlier due to the incompetence of one counsel, Mr. Dennis Bireije. The respondents had raised the relevant procedural objections at the earliest opportunity during the petition and appeal, but the applicant never attempted to adduce the two documents. The application was filed on 22 July 2004, several months after the judgment.

Issues

  1. Whether the applicant had shown good cause to be granted leave to adduce additional evidence after the conclusion of an appeal.
  2. Whether the court should recall, review and reverse its judgment in a concluded constitutional appeal under its inherent powers.

Orders

  • The oral application to adduce additional evidence is dismissed with costs to the respondents.
  • The application by notice of motion to recall the judgment in Constitutional Appeal No. 1 of 2002 is dismissed with costs to the respondents.

Rules and key headnotes

Civil Procedure — Additional Evidence on Appeal — Exceptional Circumstances
An appellate court may exercise its discretion to admit additional evidence only in exceptional circumstances, namely where the evidence could not, with due diligence, have been produced at trial; is relevant to the issues; is credible; would probably influence the result though need not be decisive; is proved by the supporting affidavit; and the application is brought without undue delay.
Civil Procedure — Additional Evidence — Due Diligence — Availability of Evidence
Where evidence was available and could with due diligence have been adduced at the trial of a petition or on appeal but was not, the party seeking to introduce it later fails to satisfy the condition of due diligence required for the admission of additional evidence.
Finality of Litigation — Reopening a Concluded Appeal — Stringency
Because there can be no end to litigation unless parties put their full case before the court, courts must be even more stringent in allowing a party to adduce additional evidence to re-open a case already completed on appeal.
Additional Evidence — Undue Delay
An application to admit additional evidence brought several months after the delivery of judgment in the appeal is not brought without undue delay and fails to meet the conditions for admission.
Inherent Powers of the Court — Recall and Review of Judgment — Sole Basis
Where the sole basis of a motion to recall a concluded judgment is the admission of additional evidence, the failure of the application to adduce that evidence leaves the motion to recall without basis, and it must also fail.

Legislation cited (9)

Cases cited (10)

  • NPART v General Parts (Uganda) Ltd (Miscellaneous Application No. 8 of 2000)
  • Kawoya Joseph v Uganda (Criminal Appeal No. 50 of 1999)
  • Ladd v Marshall [1954] 3 All ER 745
  • Skone v Skone [1971] 2 All ER 582
  • Langdale v Danby [1982] 3 All ER 129
  • Sadrudin Shariff v Tarlochan Singh [1961] EA 72
  • Elgood v Regina [1968] EA 274
  • American Express International v Atulkimar S. Patel (Application No. 8B of 1986)
  • Karmali v Lakhani [1958] EA 567
  • Corbett (1953), 2 ALL ER, 69

Cases citing this judgment (30)

How later Ugandan judgments in the Wakilii corpus have cited this case. Treatment labels come from Sequitur — Uganda’s citator — each backed by a verbatim span from the citing judgment, and are not an assertion that this case is, or is not, good law.

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Attorney General v Paul K. Ssemogerere and Ors (Constitutional Application 2 of 2004) [2004] UGSC 3 (2 September 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.