Wakilii

Hima Cement Ltd v Cairo International Bank Ltd (Civil Suit No. 13 of 2002)

High Court · [2011] UGCOMMC 16 · 2011 Application Dismissed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Interlocutory ruling on admissibility of oral evidence in a civil suit for enforcement of bank guarantee
Decision
Objection dismissed; witness permitted to continue testimony

Observed later treatment

Cited — treatment unverified cited in 1 (treatment unverified) Sequitur — Uganda’s citator · Derived from citing cases in the Wakilii corpus — not an assertion that this case is good law.

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.

No adverse treatment recorded Cited 1 time with no adverse treatment recorded; not yet tested on the merits. Derived from citing cases in the Wakilii corpus — a deterministic signal, not legal advice.

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 held that sections 91 and 92 of the Evidence Act do not apply to unilateral documents such as a letter of offer, but only to bilateral agreements between parties. Oral evidence is admissible to prove that a misdescription or misnomer in a party's name was a genuine mistake, without requiring prior rectification of the document. The witness may testify that the letter addressed to 'Ayoubco Ltd' was intended for 'Ayoubco Contracting Company Ltd', as such evidence does not vary, add to, or subtract from the terms of any agreement.

Outcome

Objection dismissed; witness permitted to continue testimony

Facts

Hima Cement Ltd sued Cairo International Bank Ltd to enforce a bank guarantee issued in favour of Ayoubco Contracting Company Ltd. The plaintiff alleged it supplied cement on credit to Ayoubco Contracting Company Ltd, which defaulted, triggering the guarantee. The defendant contended that the plaintiff's letter of offer (exhibit P1) was addressed to 'Ayoubco Ltd', a different entity from 'Ayoubco Contracting Company Ltd', the company it guaranteed. A search at the company registry revealed that 'Ayoubco Ltd' did not exist, and only 'Ayoubco Contracting Company Ltd' was incorporated. The plaintiff amended its plaint to aver that the reference to 'Ayoubco Ltd' was a misdescription. At trial, when PW1 testified that the letter was intended for Ayoubco Contracting Company Ltd, the defendant objected under sections 91 and 92 of the Evidence Act, seeking exclusion of the oral testimony. The matter was adjourned in 2004 for the plaintiff's reply and remained unresolved until reassignment to Justice Madrama in 2011.

Issues

  1. Whether oral evidence by the plaintiff's witness that a letter addressed to 'Ayoubco Ltd' was intended for 'Ayoubco Contracting Company Ltd' is admissible under sections 91 and 92 of the Evidence Act.
  2. Whether sections 91 and 92 of the Evidence Act apply to unilateral documents such as letters of offer.
  3. Whether evidence of misnomer or misdescription of a party's name may be admitted without prior rectification of the document.

Orders

  • Objection overruled with costs.
  • Oral testimony of PW1 declared admissible.
  • PW1 permitted to proceed with his testimony in chief.

Rules and key headnotes

Evidence — Exclusion of Oral Evidence — Sections 91 and 92 of the Evidence Act — Application to Unilateral Documents
Sections 91 and 92 of the Evidence Act, which exclude oral evidence contradicting, varying, adding to, or subtracting from the terms of a written agreement, do not apply to unilateral documents such as letters of offer. These provisions apply only to bilateral agreements between two or more parties.
Evidence — Best Evidence Rule — Section 91 of the Evidence Act — Terms of a Document
Section 91 of the Evidence Act provides that the best evidence of the terms of a contract, grant, or other disposition of property is the document itself. However, this rule applies only to the terms of such instruments, not to the identity of parties or other collateral matters.
Evidence — Misnomer and Misdescription — Admissibility of Oral Evidence to Prove Mistake
Where a party's name is misdescribed in a document, oral evidence is admissible to prove that the misdescription was a genuine mistake, provided the mistake did not mislead the other party or cause reasonable doubt as to the intended party's identity. Such evidence does not add to, vary, or subtract from the terms of the document, but addresses the identity of the party.
Civil Procedure — Amendment — Misnomer — No Requirement for Prior Rectification of Document
Where a misnomer or misdescription of a party's name occurs in a document, there is no requirement to rectify the document by separate application before admitting evidence of the mistake in the main suit. The court may determine whether the misdescription was genuine through evidence adduced in the proceedings.

Legislation cited (2)

Cases cited (3)

  • A.N. Phakey v World Wide Agencies Ltd [1948] XV EACA 1
  • Mitchell v Harris Engineering Co Ltd [1967] 2 QB 703
  • Rodriquez v Parker [1967] 1 QB 116

Cases citing this judgment (1)

How later Ugandan judgments in the Wakilii corpus have cited this case. Treatment labels come from Sequitur — Uganda’s citator — each backed by a verbatim span from the citing judgment, and are not an assertion that this case is, or is not, good law.

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Hima Cement Ltd v Cairo International Bank Ltd (Civil Suit No. 13 of 2002) [2011] UGCommC 16 (23 March 2011)
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.