Wakilii

Bisaso v Ssenyonga & Anor (Civil Suit No. 750 of 2017)

High Court · [2022] UGCOMMC 38 · 2022 Application Granted AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Interlocutory ruling on application for admissibility of documentary evidence in ongoing civil suit
Decision
Application for admission of documents granted; documents admitted as Defendants' exhibit D44

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 held that documentary evidence need not be admitted through witness testimony where its authenticity is not contested by either party. Where original documents were produced before court, accepted by both sides, and placed on the court file but never formally marked, the court may exercise its discretion to admit them as exhibits where authentication is not challenged and the documents are relevant to the real issues in controversy.

Outcome

Application for admission of documents granted; documents admitted as Defendants' exhibit D44

Facts

At a hearing on 8 September 2020, the Defendants' counsel received 8 invoices and 17 receipts from Sembeguya Company relating to goods supplied to the Plaintiff's company (B.N Enterprises), which the Plaintiff then supplied to the Defendants. The Plaintiff's counsel requested and was given copies of these documents. The documents were never formally tendered through a witness or marked as exhibits. At the hearing on 11 May 2022, the Defendants' counsel indicated that attempts to secure a witness from Sembeguya Company to attest to the documents had been unsuccessful and requested that the documents be admitted based on the court's inherent powers. The Plaintiff's counsel objected, arguing that the Evidence Act requires documents to be exhibited through their author or a person with knowledge of them, and that the Defendants had chosen not to tender the documents through the Plaintiff during cross-examination. The Defendants argued that the documents were already on the court record, had been provided on the direction of the previous presiding judge, were not contested, and that the Plaintiff had accepted them and requested copies.

Issues

  1. Whether the disputed documents, being 8 invoices and 17 receipts, ought to be admitted and marked as the Defendants' exhibits despite not being formally tendered through a witness.

Orders

  • The 8 invoices and 17 receipts are hereby collectively admitted in evidence as forming part of the Court's record.
  • The 8 invoices and 17 receipts are hereby collectively admitted formally as the Defendants' exhibit D44 and shall hereby be marked as such.
  • The Plaintiff will file and serve his submissions by 4th July 2022.
  • The Defendants will file and serve their submissions by 18th July 2022.
  • The Plaintiff will file and serve a rejoinder (if any) by 25th July 2022.

Rules and key headnotes

Evidence — Documentary Evidence — Authentication — General Principle
Documentary evidence must be properly authenticated and a foundation laid before it can be admitted at trial. Before any private document presented as authentic is received in evidence, its due execution and authenticity must be provided either by anyone who saw the document executed or written, or by evidence of the genuineness of the signature or handwriting of the maker.
Evidence — Documentary Evidence — Admission Without Witness Testimony — Uncontested Documents
Where documents are not disputed or contested, particularly on grounds of their authenticity, they need not be admitted through a witness. Only documents which are disputed require tendering in by a witness. The process of authentication is not rigid and can occur in several different ways depending on the nature of the evidence and the circumstances.
Evidence — Documentary Evidence — Primary Evidence — Best Evidence Rule
As a general rule under section 63 of the Evidence Act, the best proof for documents is usually primary evidence, being the document itself presented to court for inspection, except where any of the exceptions provided under section 64 of the Evidence Act apply. Not all documentary evidence has to be admitted through witness testimony, particularly where the evidence in question is not contested by either side.

Legislation cited (4)

Cases cited (1)

  • Kaggwa Michael v Olal Mark and Others (Court of Appeal No. 10 of 2017)

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Bisaso v Ssenyonga & Anor (Civil Suit No. 750 of 2017) [2022] UGCommC 38 (21 June 2022)
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.