Wakilii

Bemanyisa v Mujuni & Another (Miscellaneous Application 3858 of 2023)

High Court · [2023] UGHCLD 452 · 2023 Application Dismissed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Application for discovery and inspection of documents arising from Civil Suit No. 182 of 2022
Decision
Application for discovery and inspection dismissed

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

An application for discovery of sale agreements between the first respondent and third parties was dismissed. The court held that the documents sought were not shown to be relevant or material to the main suit which concerned trespass. The application was found to be a fishing expedition driven by speculation rather than a genuine need to prepare the applicant's case. The applicant failed to prove the documents were in the respondent's possession or control.

Outcome

Application for discovery and inspection dismissed

Facts

The applicant claimed to be the registered proprietor of land comprised in Busiro Block 403 Plots 334-359. The respondents held kibanja interests over part of this land. In his written statement of defence in the main suit (Civil Suit No. 182 of 2022), the first respondent stated he had sold his kibanja to various third parties by the time the suit was filed. The applicant brought this interlocutory application seeking discovery of the sale agreements between the first respondent and the alleged third-party purchasers, and disclosure of documents from the second respondent regarding a building structure. The applicant argued these documents were necessary to enable him to proceed with the main suit. The respondents opposed the application, stating the documents were not relevant to the issues in the main suit and that the parties had already agreed on the documents to be relied upon in the Joint Scheduling Memorandum.

Issues

  1. Whether the discovery and inspection orders being sought by the applicant can be granted by this court?
  2. What remedies are available to the parties?

Orders

  • Application dismissed.
  • No orders as to costs.

Rules and key headnotes

Discovery of Documents — Relevance and Materiality Requirement
For an order of discovery to be granted, the applicant must show that the document or information sought is relevant and material to the issues in the suit. A document is relevant if it makes a fact in issue more or less probable than it would be without that evidence. A document is material if it is offered to prove an element of a claim or defence necessary for one side to prevail.
Discovery of Documents — Fishing Expedition Prohibition
An application for discovery will be denied if it amounts to a fishing expedition, where the applicant is driven by hope that something will emerge which may form the basis of or support the claim rather than having a definite case. A plaintiff who issues proceedings must be taken to know what the case is and cannot use discovery to find out whether a case exists.
Discovery of Documents — Possession, Custody, or Control Requirement
For discovery to be ordered, the applicant must prove that the documents sought are in the possession, custody, or control of the respondent. Actual physical possession is unnecessary if the party has control of the document or a right to possession equal or superior to the person with physical possession. Mere access to documents does not constitute possession, custody, or control.
Discovery of Documents — Discretionary Nature and Proportionality
An order for discovery is discretionary in nature. In exercising that discretion, the court will have regard to its proportionality to the needs of the case, considering the importance of the issues at stake, the amount in controversy, the parties' relative access to relevant information, the parties' resources, the importance of the discovery in resolving the issues, and whether the burden or expense outweighs its likely benefit.

Legislation cited (7)

Cases cited (4)

  • Simbamanyo Estates Ltd and Another v Equity Bank Ltd and Others (Miscellaneous Application No. 583 of 2022)
  • John Kato v Mulhbauer and Another (Miscellaneous Application No. 175 of 2011)
  • Gale v Denman Picture Houses Ltd [1930] KB 588
  • Patricia Mutesi v Attorney General (Miscellaneous Application No. 912 of 2016)

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Bemanyisa_v_Mujuni_&_Another_(Miscellaneous_Application_3858_of_2023)_[2023]_UGHCLD_452_(2_May_2023)
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.