Wakilii

Belly Kirimwimana v Ambrosoli Limited t/a Ambrosoli International School and Sonja Carxna Strange Thomsen (Miscellaneous Application No. 397 of 2023)

High Court · [2026] UGHCCD 45 · 2026 Application Dismissed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Interlocutory application for discovery of documents arising from civil suit for defamation
Decision
Application for discovery dismissed; main suit to proceed to hearing

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 an application for discovery of documents sought by an applicant in a defamation suit. The documents related to a period after the alleged defamatory publication and were therefore irrelevant to the issues in dispute. The applicant failed to prove the documents existed, were in the respondents' possession, and were relevant to the matter in issue. The application was found to be a fishing expedition.

Outcome

Application for discovery dismissed; main suit to proceed to hearing

Facts

The applicant brought an interlocutory application in a defamation suit arising from a publication made on 11 April 2022. He sought discovery of three categories of documents: a children's changing log, an attendance register for the period 1 May to 31 July 2022, and the passports of the 2nd respondent and her daughter. The applicant claimed these documents would establish the presence or absence of the 2nd respondent's daughter a month after an alleged abuse incident and the dates of their travel. The 1st respondent opposed the application on grounds that the documents were not relevant, contained confidential information about third parties, and that the application was a fishing expedition. The 2nd respondent opposed on grounds that the application was incompetent, a fishing expedition, and that she was not in possession of the school documents.

Issues

  1. Whether the applicant has satisfied the conditions for grant of an order of discovery of documents?

Orders

  • Application dismissed with costs.
  • Main suit to be fixed for hearing and determination on its merits.

Rules and key headnotes

Discovery of Documents — Conditions for Grant of Order
For a court to grant an order for discovery of documents, the applicant must satisfy four conditions: (a) the power is discretionary; (b) the document exists and is in possession or control of the respondent; (c) the document relates and is relevant to the matter in issue in the action; and (d) the application is not a fishing expedition.
Discovery — Relevance of Documents
Documents sought to be discovered must relate to and be relevant to the matter in issue in the action. Documents relating to a period after the facts giving rise to the cause of action are post-facto and irrelevant to the determination of the dispute.
Discovery — Fishing Expedition
A plaintiff who issues a writ must be taken to know what his case is. An application for discovery of documents outside the period material to the matter in issue amounts to a fishing expedition and is unacceptable. A party cannot use discovery to try to find out whether he has a case or not.
Discovery — Burden of Proof on Existence and Possession
An applicant seeking discovery must prove that the documents sought exist and are in the possession or control of the respondent. Mere assertion without proof on oath or supporting evidence is insufficient to satisfy this condition.
Discovery — Privilege and Confidentiality
A party seeking to exclude documents from discovery on the basis of exemption or immunity must specifically plead the particular privilege or immunity claimed and provide evidence supporting the claim. Mere assertion of confidentiality without proof of prejudice is insufficient.

Legislation cited (3)

Cases cited (6)

  • Angubua Peter v Housing Finance Bank (U) Ltd (HCMA No. 434 of 2022)
  • John Kato v Muhlbauer & Another (MA No. 333 of 2010)
  • Dresdner Bank Ag. v Sango Bay Estates Ltd (No. 3) [1971] 1 EA 326
  • Dresdner Bank Ag. v Sango Bay Estates Ltd (No. 4) [1971] 1 EA 409
  • Gale v Denman Picture Houses Ltd [1930] KB 588
  • Simbamanyo Estates Ltd & Anor v Equity Bank & 4 Others (HCMA No. 583 of 2022)

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Belly Kirimwimana v Ambrosoli Limited t_a Ambrosoli International School and Sonja Carxna Strange Thomsen (Miscellaneous Application No. 397 of 2023) [2026] UGHCCD 45 (26 February 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.