Emomeri v Shell Uganda Limited (Miscellaneous Application 35 of 98)

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.

Holding

The Court of Appeal, sitting as a single judge, held that the power to admit additional evidence on appeal under Rule 29(1)(b) of the Court of Appeal Rules is discretionary and will be exercised only in exceptional cases where the applicant shows sufficient reason. The proposed evidence concerned an allegation that the respondent's trial advocate lacked a valid practising certificate. The court found that the trial was in fact conducted by another advocate, and that in any event the matter concerned only an advocate's conduct, not the merits of the case. Such evidence had no bearing on the outcome of the trial. The applicant having failed to establish sufficient reason, the application was dismissed with costs to the respondent.

Outcome

Application for leave to adduce additional evidence dismissed with costs to the respondent

Facts

The applicant sought leave to adduce additional evidence at the hearing of his pending appeal arising from a High Court suit involving the respondent. The proposed additional evidence was to the effect that at the trial the respondent had been represented by a firm, Kateeba & Co. Advocates, and that Mr. Kateeba had no practising certificate at the relevant time, which the applicant argued rendered the defence a nullity. The applicant contended the evidence was relevant and material, was not known or available at the time of trial, and that without it he would suffer injustice and irreparable loss. The respondent opposed, arguing the evidence was available at trial and discoverable with reasonable diligence, that the case had in fact been conducted throughout by Mr. Turyakira and not Mr. Kateeba, and that the evidence concerned only an advocate's conduct without bearing on the merits.

Issues

1. Whether the applicant established sufficient reason under Rule 29(1)(b) of the Court of Appeal Rules to be permitted to adduce additional evidence at the hearing of the appeal.
2. Whether evidence that the respondent's trial counsel lacked a practising certificate had a bearing on the merits of the case so as to justify its admission on appeal.

Orders

• Application dismissed.
• Costs of the application to the respondent.

Rules and key headnotes

Legislation cited (2)

• Court of Appeal Rules r.29(1)(b)
• Court of Appeal Rules r.29(2)

Cases cited (3)

• Sadrudin Shopiff v Tarlochan Singh [1953] EA 59
• Karmali Tar Mohamed and another v Lakhani & Co. [1958] EA 567
• Elwood v R (1968) EA 274

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