Wakilii

Kare Distribution Limited v African Rivers Fund (Miscellaneous Application 2714 of 2023)

High Court · [2024] UGCOMMC 270 · 2024 Application Dismissed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Interlocutory application in Civil Suit No. 700 of 2019 seeking to recall witnesses for cross-examination and permission to file pretrial documents
Decision
Application dismissed for lack of merit and abuse of court process

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

Application dismissed. The court held that recalling a witness under Order 18 rule 13 CPR is at the court's discretion and must be exercised judiciously. The second applicant voluntarily and contemptuously left court during the scheduling conference and plaintiff's witness testimony, thereby forfeiting his right to cross-examine. Pretrial documents had been filed and served before the scheduling conference. The applicants' conduct constituted an abuse of court process and a time-wasting tactic.

Outcome

Application dismissed for lack of merit and abuse of court process

Facts

The applicants sought orders to recall the plaintiff's witnesses in Civil Suit No. 700 of 2019 for cross-examination and to file pretrial documents. On 30th October 2023, the second applicant stormed out of court before the scheduling conference could be completed and before the plaintiff's witness testified, thereby voluntarily absenting himself from proceedings. Pretrial documents had been filed by the respondent on 27th October 2023 and served on the applicants via email on 28th October 2023 in preparation for the 30th October 2023 hearing. The second applicant had withdrawn instructions from his lawyers on 18th September 2023 and was representing himself. The plaintiff's witness had already testified, the plaintiff's case had been closed, and written submissions had been directed.

Issues

  1. Whether the court should recall the plaintiff's witnesses for cross-examination by the applicants.
  2. Whether the applicants should be allowed to file pretrial documents including scheduling memorandum, trial bundles and witness statements after the plaintiff's case had been closed.

Orders

  • Application dismissed.
  • Costs of the application to be borne by the applicants.

Rules and key headnotes

Recall of Witnesses — Court's Discretion — Order 18 Rule 13 CPR
The power to recall a witness under Order 18 rule 13 of the Civil Procedure Rules is a discretionary power vested in the court to be exercised judiciously and reasonably, not to the prejudice of any party, and is not a matter of right or course for the parties.
Right to Cross-Examination — Voluntary Forfeiture
A party who voluntarily and contemptuously absents himself from court during the testimony of a witness forfeits his right to cross-examine that witness and cannot subsequently seek an order to recall the witness for cross-examination.
Abuse of Court Process — Delay Tactics
Where a party files multiple applications seeking to stop or stay proceedings, voluntarily absents himself from court during scheduled hearings, and then seeks orders to re-open matters already concluded, such conduct constitutes an abuse of court process and a time-wasting tactic which the court will not condone.

Legislation cited (1)

Cases cited (3)

  • China Railway No. 3, Engineering Co. Limited v Prof. Arthur Gakwandi (Miscellaneous Application No. 25 of 2023)
  • Simbambanyo Estates Ltd v Equity Bank and others (Miscellaneous Application No. 660 of 2022)
  • CA No. 804 of 2022

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.

Kare Distribution Limited v African Rivers Fund (Miscellaneous Application 2714 of 2023) [2024] UGCommC 270 (25 March 2024)
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.