Wakilii

Grace Sissy Nague Nakasujja v Nsubuga Drake Musoke and Another [2026] UGHCLD 70

High Court · 2026 Application Granted AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Interlocutory application in a pending land suit for leave to reopen the applicant's defence and counterclaim and to call an additional witness
Decision
Application allowed; applicant permitted to reopen her defence and counterclaim and to call Jane Nabulime as a witness in the main suit

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 reopen a closed defence and counterclaim and to call an additional witness. Leave to reopen is discretionary and turns on the materiality of the proposed evidence, the reason it was not led timeously, the stage of the litigation, the need for finality, and above all whether the opposing party would be prejudiced. Where a witness was omitted through the inadvertence or negligence of former counsel, that default should not be visited on an innocent lay litigant, who is under no duty to supervise counsel's compliance with instructions on procedural steps. Since the intended witness was the source of the applicant's kibanja interest and her statement had already been filed, no irreparable prejudice arose.

Outcome

Application allowed; applicant permitted to reopen her defence and counterclaim and to call Jane Nabulime as a witness in the main suit

Facts

In Civil Suit No. 2958 of 2016 the 1st respondent sought declarations of lawful ownership of land at Kyadondo Block 185 Plot 1277, Namugongo. The applicant, the 4th defendant and counterclaimant, asserted ownership of Kyadondo Block 185 Plot 2019, claiming a kibanja interest bought partly from Florence Achieng (who had bought from Nanyonga Margaret Kayizzi and Jane Nabulime) and partly from the estate of the late Yosifa Kayizzi, of which Jane Nabulime is administrator. The applicant, resident in the United Kingdom, said she had instructed her former advocates, M/s KGN Advocates, that Jane Nabulime was a material witness, but her defence and counterclaim case was closed on 11 September 2025 without that witness being called. She instructed new advocates and applied for leave to reopen and call the witness. Her pleadings of 29 March 2019 and witness statement of 4 July 2022 consistently identified Nabulime as the source of her kibanja interest, and Nabulime's signed witness statement had been uploaded on ECCMIS on 20 February 2026. The 1st respondent opposed the application as an afterthought of no probative value, and as delaying an old case, but pleaded no specific prejudice.

Issues

  1. Whether leave should be granted to the applicant to reopen her defence and counterclaim in Civil Suit No. 2958 of 2016 and to call an additional witness.
  2. What remedies are available to the parties.

Orders

  • The Applicant is granted leave to reopen her defence and counterclaim in Civil Suit No. 2958 of 2016.
  • The Applicant is granted leave to call Jane Nabulime as a witness in support of her defence and counterclaim on a date to be taken out by the parties.
  • The witness statement of Jane Nabulime filed on ECCMIS on 20 February 2026 is validated and, by copy of this ruling, is deemed to have been served.
  • The costs of this application will abide the outcome of Civil Suit No. 2958 of 2016.

Rules and key headnotes

Civil Procedure — Reopening a Closed Case — Discretion and Governing Considerations
A court may in its discretion grant leave to reopen a party's case at any stage of the trial, even where judgment is pending, but the discretion must be exercised with caution and by reference to the relevance and materiality of the proposed evidence, the reason it was not led timeously, the stage of the litigation, the need for finality, the effect on the expeditious conduct of the trial and, most fundamentally, whether the other party will be prejudiced.
Civil Procedure — Mistake of Counsel — Default Not Visited on Innocent Litigant
A bona fide claim or defence should not be permanently blocked from trial because of the default, inadvertence or negligence of a party's advocate; a lay litigant is under no duty to supervise counsel's compliance with instructions on technical procedural steps at trial, and such default will not be visited on the litigant absent evidence of dilatory conduct on the litigant's part.
Evidence — Leave to Adduce Further Evidence — Materiality Threshold
Before leave to adduce further evidence is granted the applicant must show that the evidence is relevant, material and credible and that, if it had been presented at trial, it would probably have changed the result; evidence from the person through whom the applicant's claimed interest in the suit land was transferred satisfies this test.
Civil Procedure — Prejudice — Need for Particularisation and Effect of Prior Disclosure
A general assertion that a matter is old and that reopening will cause delay does not establish prejudice; the opposing party must particularise the prejudice alleged, and prejudice is further negated where the proposed witness's statement has already been filed and served and the opposing party retains the right of cross-examination.
Civil Procedure — Pleadings — Witnesses Not Listed Under Order 6 Rule 1(b)
The requirement under Order 6 rule 1(b) of the Civil Procedure Rules that pleadings be accompanied by a list of witnesses does not preclude the calling of an unlisted witness where the pleadings and witness statement consistently identify that person as central to the party's case, so that the proposed testimony cannot be dismissed as an afterthought.

Legislation cited (5)

Cases cited (7)

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Grace Sissy Nague Nakasujja v Nsubuga Drake Musoke and Another [2026] UGHCLD 70 (25 March 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.