Wakilii

Kachra Investiment Company Ltd v Mbale Municipal Council & 2 Ors (Misc. Application .No. 109 of 2015)

Court of Appeal · [2015] UGCA 76 · 2015 Application Granted AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Application for leave to adduce additional evidence on appeal, arising out of Civil Appeal No. 008 of 2012.
Decision
Application to adduce additional evidence on appeal granted; the Court to take the additional evidence.

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 considered the application for leave to adduce additional evidence on appeal under Rule 30(1)(b) of the Court of Appeal Rules. Applying the established principles, an appellate court may exceptionally admit additional evidence where it was unavailable at trial despite due diligence, is relevant and credible, and would probably influence the result. The Court found that the Commissioner Land Registration's letter of 17 October 2014, clarifying the status of the disputed lease, arose after the judgment of 22 August 2014, that the applicant had made continual efforts to obtain the evidence, and that it was relevant and credible. Invoking Article 126(2)(e) of the Constitution to serve substantive justice, the Court granted the application.

Outcome

Application to adduce additional evidence on appeal granted; the Court to take the additional evidence.

Facts

The applicant was the unsuccessful party in High Court Civil Suit No. 008 of 2012, in which judgment was delivered on 22 August 2014, and it appealed. A key issue at trial concerned the identity of the suit land, and the 1st respondent relied on a photocopy of a title deed for land comprised in LRV 502 Folio 6, which the court relied on in its judgment. The applicant had objected at trial to the use of the photocopy and requested the original duplicate title, which the respondents undertook but failed to provide. Subsequent to judgment, on 17 October 2014, the Commissioner Land Registration noted that the lease comprised in LRV 502 Folio 6 had been erroneously issued as it had been abolished, and the Special Certificate of Title issued in 2007 was erroneous. This communication reached the applicant after trial. The applicant sought leave to adduce this letter and a newspaper article dated 28 June 2013 as additional evidence, contending they were not available during the lower court hearing.

Issues

  1. Whether the applicant satisfied the conditions for leave to adduce additional evidence on appeal.
  2. Whether the additional evidence sought was unavailable at trial despite due diligence and would probably influence the outcome of the appeal.

Orders

  • This Court shall take the additional evidence sought to be adduced by the applicant.
  • The costs of the application to abide the outcome of the appeal.

Rules and key headnotes

Appeals — Additional Evidence — Conditions for Admission
An appellate court may exercise its discretion to admit additional evidence only in exceptional circumstances, namely where the evidence could not have been obtained at trial despite due diligence, is relevant to the issues, is credible, would probably influence the result of the case, is supported by proof attached to the affidavit, and where the application is brought without undue delay.
Additional Evidence on Appeal — Evidence Arising After Judgment
Where evidence clarifying a material fact came into existence or was communicated to a party only after the delivery of judgment, and the party made continual efforts to obtain it before trial, the requirement that the evidence was unavailable at trial despite due diligence may be satisfied.
Substantive Justice — Article 126(2)(e) of the Constitution
A court may invoke Article 126(2)(e) of the Constitution to pursue substantive justice without undue regard to technicalities, including where an application to adduce additional evidence is filed after some delay but the peculiar circumstances justify hearing it on the merits.

Legislation cited (4)

Cases cited (3)

  • American Express International Banking Corporation v Atulkumar Sumant B. Patel [1987] HCB 34
  • General Parts (U) Ltd v Kunnal Karia (Civil Application No. 266 of 2013)
  • Attorney General v Ssemogerere and Others (Constitutional Application No. 2 of 2004)

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Kachra Investiment Company Ltd Vs Mbale Municipal Council & 2 Ors (Misc. Application .No. 109 of 2015) [2015] UGCA 76 (28 October 2015)
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.