Wakilii

Grace Sissy Nague Nakasujja v Nsubuga Drake Musoke and Another (MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION NO. 217 OF 2026)

High Court · [2026] UGHCLD 70 · 2026 Application Granted AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Interlocutory application for leave to reopen defence and counterclaim case and to call additional witness in ongoing civil suit
Decision
Application granted; applicant permitted to reopen case and call additional witness

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 applicant's defence and counterclaim case to call an additional witness where the failure to call the witness was attributable to former counsel's negligence and not the applicant's fault, the proposed witness was material to the just determination of the dispute, and no irreparable prejudice would be occasioned to the respondents. The court applied the principle that innocent litigants should not be penalised for errors of their counsel.

Outcome

Application granted; applicant permitted to reopen case and call additional witness

Facts

The applicant, a British-Ugandan citizen resident in the United Kingdom, was the 4th defendant and counterclaimant in Civil Suit No. 2958 of 2016 concerning ownership of land in Kyadondo Block 185. She claimed to have acquired kibanja interest in the land through purchase from Florence Achieng and subsequently from the Estate of the Late Yosifa Kayizzi, whose administrator was Jane Nabulime. The applicant was represented by M/s KGN Advocates who closed her defence and counterclaim case on 11th September 2025 without calling Jane Nabulime as a witness, despite the applicant's instructions that she was a crucial witness. Upon discovering this omission, the applicant instructed new counsel, M/s Natweta & Co. Advocates, who filed this application seeking leave to reopen the case and call Jane Nabulime. The 1st respondent opposed the application, arguing it was an afterthought intended to delay proceedings in an already old case.

Issues

  1. Whether leave should be granted to reopen the Applicant's/counterclaimant's case in Civil Suit No. 2958 of 2016.
  2. Whether there are any remedies available.

Orders

  • The Applicant is hereby granted leave to reopen her defence and counterclaim in Civil Suit No. 2958 of 2016.
  • The Applicant is hereby 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 the 20th February 2026 is validated and by copy of this ruling is deemed to have been served.
  • The cost of this application will abide the outcome of Civil Suit No. 2958 of 2016.

Rules and key headnotes

Civil Procedure — Reopening of Case — Discretion of Court — Principles Applicable
The court may grant leave to reopen a party's case where fresh evidence, unavailable or not reasonably discoverable before, becomes known and available. The moving party must show that the evidence sought to be adduced is such that, if presented at trial, it would probably have changed the result, and that such evidence could not have been obtained by reasonable diligence before the trial. The court must consider the relevance of the proposed evidence, the effect of reopening on the orderly and expeditious conduct of the trial, and whether the other party will be prejudiced.
Civil Procedure — Counsel's Negligence — Effect on Litigant — Principle Against Penalising Innocent Litigants
A bona fide claim or defence of a litigant should not be permanently blocked from being tried on account of the default of her professional adviser. Innocent litigants should not be penalised for the errors or oversights of their counsel. Where a delay or procedural default was caused by the mistake of counsel, this should not be visited on the innocent litigant unless there is evidence that the applicant was guilty of dilatory conduct in the instructions of the lawyer.
Evidence — Additional Evidence — Materiality — Test for Admissibility
Before leave to adduce further evidence is granted, the evidence sought to be adduced must be relevant, material and credible. An applicant needs to show that the evidence he or she seeks to adduce is such that, if it had been presented at the trial, it would probably have changed the result.
Civil Procedure — Lay Litigant — Duty to Supervise Counsel — Extent of Responsibility
The law does not place upon litigants the duty to supervise their counsel's compliance with instructions on technical procedural steps during trial. It would be unreasonable to expect a lay litigant, at the moment a case is closed, to immediately recognise that her counsel had deviated from her instructions.

Legislation cited (6)

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_(MISCELLANEOUS_APPLICATION_NO._217_OF_2026)_[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.