Wakilii

East African Law Society v Attorney General of the Republic of Uganda and Another

East African Court of Justice · [2013] EACJ 149 · 2013 Application Granted AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Interlocutory application for leave to adduce additional evidence after close of pleadings in Reference No. 2 of 2012
Decision
Application granted with directions for service of additional evidence and opportunity for Respondents to file rebuttal 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 granted leave to the East African Law Society to adduce additional evidence after pleadings had closed. Applying the principles in Ladd v Marshall and Rule 46 of the Court's Rules of Procedure, the Court held that the evidence could not have been obtained earlier with reasonable diligence, would have important influence on the case, and was apparently credible. The Court emphasised that as a court of first instance it should allow all relevant evidence to enable a fair and informed decision, and that the Respondents would have opportunity to rebut the new evidence.

Outcome

Application granted with directions for service of additional evidence and opportunity for Respondents to file rebuttal evidence

Facts

The East African Law Society brought an application under Rule 46(1) of the East African Court of Justice Rules of Procedure seeking leave to produce additional evidence in documentary and electronic format after the close of pleadings in Reference No. 2 of 2012. At the Scheduling Conference, parties had agreed that all evidence would be tendered by way of affidavits. The Applicant stated that the evidence had been cumbersome to obtain, requiring surmounting of diplomatic hurdles and corporate red-tape, and only became available on 25 June 2012 after active negotiations. The 1st Respondent opposed the application, arguing it would amount to trial by ambush, render previous proceedings nugatory, and cause undue delay. The 2nd Respondent did not respond to the Motion.

Issues

  1. Whether the Court should grant leave to the Applicant to produce additional evidence in documentary and electronic format after the close of pleadings.

Orders

  • The Applicant, the East African Law Society, shall be granted leave to produce additional evidence in Reference No. 2 of 2012 pending before this Court for determination.
  • The evidence to be produced shall be in the form of documentation and also in electronic format.
  • The additional evidence shall be served upon the Respondents within 21 days of this Ruling.
  • The Respondents are at liberty to file any evidence in rebuttal within 21 days of service of the additional evidence.
  • Parties will thereafter appear for directions on how to proceed with the matter.
  • Costs of the Motion will abide the determination of Reference No. 2 of 2012.

Rules and key headnotes

Civil Procedure — Additional Evidence — Leave to Adduce After Close of Pleadings — Test for Admission
For a court to grant leave to adduce additional evidence after pleadings have closed, three conditions from Ladd v Marshall must be fulfilled: first, the evidence could not have been obtained with reasonable diligence for use at trial; secondly, the evidence must be such that if given it would probably have an important influence on the result of the case; thirdly, the evidence must be apparently credible.
Civil Procedure — Additional Evidence — Discretion of Trial Judge — Flexibility Beyond Ladd v Marshall
A trial judge has wider discretion than an appellate court when considering an application to admit new evidence after close of pleadings, and may grant the application in exceptional cases even where all three Ladd v Marshall requirements are not fulfilled, provided the interests of justice so require.
Civil Procedure — Additional Evidence — Rule 46 East African Court of Justice — Wide Discretion to Meet Ends of Justice
Rule 46(3) of the East African Court of Justice Rules of Procedure grants the court very wide discretion to order production of a document in evidence even after pleadings have closed if such production is necessary to meet the ends of justice, setting a lower threshold than the Ladd v Marshall test.
Civil Procedure — Court of First Instance — Duty to Receive All Relevant Evidence
A court of first instance should allow all parties an opportunity to tender all evidence they deem relevant to enable the court to make a fair and informed decision when it has had the opportunity to examine all possible evidence on the issues placed before it for determination.

Legislation cited (2)

  • East African Court of Justice Rules of Procedure Rule 46(1)
  • East African Court of Justice Rules of Procedure Rule 46(3)

Cases cited (3)

  • Ladd v Marshall (1954) C.A. 745
  • Brathwaite v Chief Personnel Officer (H.C. Civil Case No. 687 of 2007)
  • Charlesworth v Relay Roads Ltd (2000) 1 WLR 230

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

East African Law Society v Attorney General of the Republic of Uganda and Another [2013] EACJ 149 (14 February 2013)
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.