Wakilii

Baljinder Singh Nandra and Another v Prime Finance Co Ltd (Miscellaneous Application No. 447 of 2026)

High Court · [2026] UGCOMMC 302 · 2026 Application Dismissed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Application for leave to appeal against an interlocutory ruling expunging a witness statement from the court record in ongoing civil proceedings
Decision
Application for leave to appeal dismissed; main suit to proceed to conclusion

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 court dismissed the application for leave to appeal against an interlocutory ruling that expunged a witness statement of a deceased witness who died before cross-examination. The court held that Order 18 rule 5A(5) of the Civil Procedure Rules is clear and mandatory, requiring expungement where a witness does not appear for cross-examination unless the parties consent. The intended appeal disclosed no serious triable issue and would cause further delay in proceedings ongoing since 2019.

Outcome

Application for leave to appeal dismissed; main suit to proceed to conclusion

Facts

The 2nd applicant's late father, Baljinder Singh Nandra, was a defendant in Civil Suit No. 931 of 2019. During the defence hearing, the deceased appeared virtually, took oath, and his witness statement was admitted as evidence in chief. Before cross-examination could commence, his device fell and he could not be reached. On subsequent adjournments, counsel informed the court he was unwell. He died in 2022 before being cross-examined. The respondent applied to expunge his witness statement from the record. On 23 February 2026, the trial judge ruled that the statement should be expunged pursuant to Order 18 rule 5A(5) of the Civil Procedure Rules, which requires expungement where a witness does not appear to tender his statement and be cross-examined unless the opposite party consents. The 2nd applicant then sought leave to appeal that ruling.

Issues

  1. Whether the applicant has sufficient grounds for the grant of leave to appeal against an interlocutory ruling expunging a witness statement.
  2. What remedies are available to the parties.

Orders

  • Application dismissed.
  • Costs shall be provided in the cause.

Rules and key headnotes

Civil Procedure — Leave to Appeal — Interlocutory Orders — Test for Grant of Leave
Leave to appeal will be granted where prima facie it appears that there are grounds of appeal which merit serious judicial consideration, but where the order from which it is sought to appeal was made in the exercise of judicial discretion, a rather stronger case will have to be made out.
Civil Procedure — Leave to Appeal — Realistic Prospect of Success
An applicant seeking leave to appeal must show either that the intended appeal has a reasonable chance of success or that there are arguable grounds of appeal. The court will only refuse leave if satisfied that the applicant has no realistic prospects of succeeding on appeal. A real prospect of success means that the prospect must be realistic rather than fanciful.
Evidence — Witness Statements — Expungement Where Witness Dies Before Cross-Examination
Order 18 rule 5A(5) of the Civil Procedure Rules is mandatory and requires that a witness statement be expunged from the court record where the witness does not appear to tender the statement and be cross-examined, unless the opposite party consents. The rule applies even where the witness dies after the statement has been admitted as evidence in chief but before cross-examination, and admits of no exception based on the reason for non-appearance.
Civil Procedure — Leave to Appeal — Delay and Efficiency Considerations
In determining whether to grant leave to appeal, the court must take into account the need for litigation to be conducted efficiently and at proportionate cost, and the need to enforce compliance with rules. Where a matter has been pending for a considerable period, granting leave to appeal an interlocutory ruling on a point already clearly provided for by law will cause further delay and should be refused.

Legislation cited (13)

Cases cited (11)

  • Apollo Bright Bweyakye and 3 Others v Prof. Sam Tulya-Muhika (Court of Appeal Civil Application No. 239 of 2023)
  • Hamam Singh Bhogal T/a Hamam Singh & Co. v Jadva Karsan (1953) 20 EACA 17
  • Baku Raphael v Attorney General (Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 1 of 2005)
  • Attorney General v Shah (No. 4) [1971] EA 50
  • Sango Bay Estates Ltd and Others v Dresdner Bank AG [1971] 1 EA 17
  • Southern Union Insurance Brokers Limited and Others v NIKO Insurance Uganda Limited (Miscellaneous Application No. 568 of 2022)
  • GM Combined v AK Detergents (Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 23 of 1994)
  • Swain v Hillman [2001] 1 All ER 91
  • Degeya Trading Stores (U) Ltd v Uganda Revenue Authority (Court of Appeal Civil Application No. 16 of 1996)
  • Olweny Patrick and 2 Others v Oyoo Lungino and 3 Others (Civil Appeal No. 32 of 2018)
  • Nice Star International ltd vs Hunan Road & Bridge Construction Group Co. Ltd

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Baljinder Singh Nandra and Another v Prime Finance Co Ltd (Miscellaneous Application No. 447 of 2026) [2026] UGCommC 302 (10 June 2026)
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.