Wakilii

Centenary Rural Development Bank (U) Ltd v Bwayo Mathew (Miscellaneous Application No. 748 of 2025)

High Court · [2026] UGCOMMC 8 · 2026 Application Granted AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Interlocutory application to adduce additional evidence and recall witness in ongoing civil suit
Decision
Application granted; respondent's case reopened for additional evidence and witness recall

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 High Court granted leave to reopen the respondent's case to allow the applicant to adduce additional evidence consisting of a letter and affidavit authored by the respondent in English, and to recall the respondent for cross-examination. The court found the evidence material and relevant to test the respondent's claim of illiteracy, was unavailable at the time of the original cross-examination, and that reopening would serve the interests of justice without prejudicing the respondent.

Outcome

Application granted; respondent's case reopened for additional evidence and witness recall

Facts

The applicant bank brought an interlocutory application in an ongoing civil suit seeking leave to adduce additional evidence and recall the respondent for cross-examination. The respondent had claimed to be illiterate in his pleadings and his examination in chief, cross-examination and re-examination were concluded on 25th February 2025. After the respondent's case closed, on 11th March 2025 the respondent personally delivered a letter to the applicant written in English. Subsequently, on 18th November 2025, the respondent filed an affidavit in support of an application for renewal of Letters of Administration, also sworn in English. The applicant sought to introduce these documents as evidence contradicting the respondent's claim of illiteracy. The respondent opposed the application, maintaining he was illiterate and had obtained assistance from a typist and a court clerk to prepare the documents in English.

Issues

  1. Whether leave should be granted to re-open the Respondent/Plaintiff's case to adduce additional evidence and recall the witness for cross-examination.

Orders

  • Application granted.
  • The Respondent's case in Civil Suit No. 73 of 2019 is reopened.
  • The Applicant is allowed to adduce the letter dated 11th March 2025 and the Respondent's affidavit in support of his application for renewal of Letters of Administration.
  • The Respondent is recalled for examination on the additional evidence.
  • Costs of this application shall abide the outcome of the main suit.

Rules and key headnotes

Civil Procedure — Reopening of Case — Test for Granting Leave
A court may grant leave to reopen a party's case where fresh evidence, unavailable or not reasonably discoverable before, becomes known and available, provided the moving party shows that the evidence would probably have changed the result if presented at trial and that it could not have been obtained by reasonable diligence before the trial.
Civil Procedure — Reopening of Case — Factors for Court's Consideration
In considering whether to reopen a case, the court should consider the relevance of the proposed evidence, the effect of reopening on the orderly and expeditious conduct of the trial, whether the other party will be prejudiced, the reason the evidence was not led timeously, the degree of materiality of the evidence, the balance of prejudice, the stage the litigation has reached, and the general need for finality in judicial proceedings.
Civil Procedure — Supplementary Affidavits — Filing Without Leave
Where a supplementary affidavit is filed without leave of court but is served on the opposing party together with the main application and the opposing party files a reply, the opposing party is not prejudiced and the court may invoke Article 126(2)(e) of the Constitution and Section 98 of the Civil Procedure Act to allow the supplementary affidavit.

Legislation cited (7)

Cases cited (4)

  • Oriental Insurance Brokers Limited v Transocean (U) Limited (Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 55 of 1995)
  • Tolit Charles Okiro v Otto Cipiriano (Civil Revision No. 02 of 2019)
  • Hon. Justice Anup Singh Choudry v UMEME Ltd (High Court Miscellaneous Application No. 1191 of 2023)
  • 671122 Ontario Ltd Vs Sagaz Industries Canada Inc 2001 SCC 59, 2 SCR 983 (SCC)

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Centenary Rural Development Bank (U) Ltd v Bwayo Mathew (Miscellaneous Application No. 748 of 2025) [2026] UGCommC 8 (14 January 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.