Wakilii

Kalibbala Herbert v Electoral Commission (Miscellaneous Application No. 76 of 2024)

High Court · [2025] UGHCCD 217 · 2025 Application Dismissed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Application for review of High Court ruling dismissing judicial review application
Decision
Application for review dismissed with costs to the respondent

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

An application for review based on discovery of new evidence must satisfy the court that the evidence could not have been discovered through due diligence at the time of the original hearing. Where an acknowledged copy of a complaint was peculiarly within the applicant's knowledge and the issue of non-receipt was raised by the respondent during the original proceedings, the applicant had a legal duty to adduce evidence or show efforts to retrieve the document. The failure to do so means the evidence cannot be considered newly discovered. Application dismissed.

Outcome

Application for review dismissed with costs to the respondent

Facts

The applicant filed a judicial review application (MC No. 93 of 2021) against the Electoral Commission. On 4 January 2024, the High Court dismissed the suit on the ground that the applicant had not exhausted available remedies, as the complaint letter attached to his affidavit bore no evidence of acknowledgement by the respondent. The applicant's former lawyers had stated the acknowledged copy was misplaced. After dismissal, on 10 January 2024, the former lawyers informed the applicant they had discovered the acknowledged copy in their archives. The applicant brought this review application claiming discovery of new and important evidence. The respondent opposed, stating the document existed before and during trial and could have been produced with due diligence.

Issues

  1. Whether the application raises any sufficient ground for review of the decision of the Court in M.C No. 093 of 2021?

Orders

  • Application for review dismissed.
  • Costs awarded to the respondent.

Rules and key headnotes

Civil Procedure — Review of Judgments — Discovery of New Evidence — Due Diligence Requirement
An application for review based on discovery of new and important matter of evidence under Order 46 Rule 1(b) of the Civil Procedure Rules requires the applicant to satisfy the court that after exercise of due diligence, the evidence was not within his knowledge or could not be produced at the time the decree or order was made.
Civil Procedure — Review of Judgments — Evidence Peculiarly Within Applicant's Knowledge
Where alleged new evidence was a matter peculiarly within the knowledge of the applicant, and the issue was raised and rebutted by the respondent in the original proceedings, the applicant had a legal duty to adduce evidence on the matter including presenting evidence from the person who served the document. Failure to show any efforts to retrieve the document means the evidence cannot be considered newly discovered for purposes of review.
Civil Procedure — Review of Judgments — Sequential Considerations
The consideration of whether newly discovered evidence would have been relevant or impactful to the court's decision only comes into play where the court is first satisfied that the alleged new matter of evidence could not have been discovered at the time of the earlier hearing through exercise of due diligence.

Legislation cited (7)

Cases cited (1)

  • Kisakye Emmanuel v Joyce Nankya (High Court Miscellaneous Application No. 3089 of 2023)

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Kalibbala Herbert v Electoral Commission (Miscellaneous Application No. 76 of 2024) [2025] UGHCCD 217 (2 December 2025)
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.