Wakilii

Bismilla Trading Limited v Falcon Estates Limited and Others (Civil Suit No. 192 of 2015)

High Court · [2025] UGHCLD 209 · 2025 Application Dismissed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Interlocutory ruling on admissibility of video evidence in civil suit
Decision
Video evidence ruled inadmissible; matter to proceed without the contested evidence

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 video evidence recorded by a witness and transferred to other devices without producing the original device failed to satisfy the burden of proving that the recording had not been altered. The plaintiff did not establish that the integrity of the information remained complete and unaltered as required by section 6 of the Electronic Transactions Act. The video evidence was rejected as inadmissible.

Outcome

Video evidence ruled inadmissible; matter to proceed without the contested evidence

Facts

The plaintiff sought to adduce video evidence showing construction activity on an access road. The video was recorded by a witness and subsequently transferred to other devices. The defendants objected to the admissibility of the video on grounds that it had been altered in violation of section 6(1)(a) of the Electronic Transactions Act Cap 99, and that it had not been transcribed as required by section 88 of the Civil Procedure Act. The plaintiff argued that the video had only been rearranged for presentation purposes and that transcription was unnecessary as the audio was background noise and the visual content was what mattered. The original recording device was not produced in court.

Issues

  1. Whether the video recording evidence was admissible under the Electronic Transactions Act Cap 99.
  2. Whether the video recording had been altered in a manner that rendered it inadmissible.
  3. Whether the video recording required transcription under section 88 of the Civil Procedure Act.

Orders

  • Video evidence rejected as inadmissible.

Rules and key headnotes

Evidence — Electronic Evidence — Admissibility — Integrity and Alteration
For electronic evidence to be admissible under section 6 of the Electronic Transactions Act Cap 99, the party presenting it must satisfy the court that the integrity of the information has remained complete and unaltered from the time it was first generated, except for endorsements or changes arising in the normal course of communication, storage, or display.
Evidence — Electronic Evidence — Burden of Proof — Original Device
Where electronic evidence has been transferred from an original device to other devices, the party seeking to adduce the evidence bears the burden of proving that the recording has not been altered, and failure to produce the original device may result in the court being unable to conclude that the evidence is unaltered.
Evidence — Video and Audio Recordings — Transcription Requirement
Where video evidence is adduced primarily for its visual content and the audio component consists of irrelevant background noise, transcription of the audio is not necessary for admissibility, provided the visual evidence is relevant and otherwise admissible.

Legislation cited (3)

Cases cited (3)

  • US v Briscoe 896 F.2D 1476 (7th Circuit 1990)
  • Union Trade Centre Limited (UTC) v The Attorney General of Rwanda
  • R v Masqud Ali and Asiq Hussan (1965) 2 All E.R 464

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Bismilla_Trading_Limited_v_Falcon_Estates_Limited_and_Others_(Civil_Suit_No._192_of_2015)_[2025]_UGHCLD_209_(27_August_2025)
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.