Wakilii

Hong KongYilong Lighters Manufacturing Company (U) SMC Limited v Homate Construction Limited [2026] UGHCCD 158

High Court · 2026 Application Granted AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Interlocutory application arising from civil suit seeking recall of witness for cross-examination
Decision
Witness recalled for cross-examination; matter to proceed to scheduling conference

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 an application to recall a plaintiff's witness for cross-examination where the applicant's former counsel failed to appear at the hearing due to a fee dispute. The Court held that the applicant should not permanently lose the right to cross-examine as a consequence of counsel's manner of withdrawal, which fell below professional standards. The constitutional right to a fair hearing under Article 28 and the principle of substantive justice under Article 126(2)(e) required that the witness be recalled.

Outcome

Witness recalled for cross-examination; matter to proceed to scheduling conference

Facts

The Respondent instituted Civil Suit No. 58 of 2022 against the Applicant. The Applicant instructed M/s Rwabwogo and Co. Advocates to represent it. During the hearing on 27 January 2025, the Applicant's counsel failed to appear, resulting in the closure of the Plaintiff's case without cross-examination of the Plaintiff's witness, Mr. Wang Chun Li. The Applicant's Managing Director was informed of the hearing only at 9:00 AM on the morning of the hearing. The former counsel demanded additional payment beyond fees already paid before they would attend court. An engagement agreement exhibited by the Applicant showed that only half of the agreed fees (UGX 4 million of UGX 8 million) had been paid as at March 2022, with a balance outstanding. The Applicant promptly instructed new counsel, M/s Gravitas Associated Advocates, who filed this application on 20 March 2025 seeking to recall the witness for cross-examination.

Issues

  1. Whether the Court has the power and discretion to recall the Plaintiff's witness for cross-examination.
  2. Whether the failure to cross-examine the Plaintiff's witness was caused by the gross misconduct and negligence of the Applicant's former counsel and whether the Applicant ought in those circumstances to be made to suffer that consequence.
  3. Whether the Applicant's right to a fair hearing under Article 28 of the Constitution would be violated if the application is refused.
  4. Whether the application was brought without inordinate delay.

Orders

  • Application allowed.
  • The Plaintiff's witness, Mr. Wang Chun Li, is recalled for cross-examination by Counsel for the Defendant/Applicant.
  • The Respondent is directed to ensure that Mr. Wang Chun Li is available for cross-examination.
  • The Respondent shall be at liberty to re-examine Mr. Wang Chun Li on any matters arising from cross-examination.
  • Costs of this application shall be in the cause.
  • The parties shall appear before the Court for a scheduling conference to fix the date for cross-examination and the further conduct of the main suit.

Rules and key headnotes

Civil Procedure — Recall of Witnesses — Discretionary Power of Court
Under Order 18 Rule 13 of the Civil Procedure Rules, the Court has a broad discretionary power to recall any witness who has been examined at any stage of a suit and may put such questions to that witness as the Court thinks fit.
Civil Procedure — Advocate Misconduct — Client Not to Suffer for Counsel's Failings
A client who has acted diligently should not be made to permanently lose substantive rights as a consequence of counsel's manner of withdrawal from proceedings, even where there exists a legitimate fee dispute between advocate and client.
Evidence — Cross-Examination — Fundamental Component of Fair Hearing
Cross-examination is a fundamental component of a fair hearing and not a procedural luxury. To allow a case to proceed to final determination on the basis of testimony that a party had no opportunity to challenge would violate the constitutional right to a fair hearing under Article 28 of the Constitution.
Constitutional Law — Fair Hearing — Substantive Justice Over Procedural Form
Article 126(2)(e) of the Constitution requires courts to administer substantive justice without undue regard to technicalities. A procedural closure of a party's case should not be exalted above the constitutional imperative that the case be decided on its merits.
Evidence — Affidavit Evidence — Contradiction Between Affidavit and Exhibit
Where an affidavit and its own exhibit are in contradiction, it is the exhibit, being a contemporaneous document, that carries greater evidentiary weight.

Legislation cited (6)

Cases cited (2)

  • Edward Musisi v Interfreight Forwarders (U) Ltd [1989] ULSR 144
  • Haji Ahmed Kezaala v National Resistance Movement (EP No. 4 of 2011)

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Hong KongYilong Lighters Manufacturing Company (U) SMC Limited v Homate Construction Limited 2026 UGHCCD 158 (22 May 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.