Wakilii

Katamba Mohammad v Nakyeyune Zam (Civil Appeal No. 32 of 2024)

High Court · [2026] UGHC 342 · 2026 Application Dismissed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Application for leave to adduce additional evidence on appeal from Chief Magistrate's Court decision in land dispute
Decision
Application dismissed; appellant not permitted to introduce additional evidence on appeal

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

Application for leave to adduce additional evidence on appeal dismissed. The court held that the appellant failed to satisfy the conditions under Order 43 Rule 22(1) of the Civil Procedure Rules. The proposed evidence regarding the alleged falsity of a marriage certificate could have been obtained with reasonable diligence at trial and would not materially influence the appeal's outcome, as the trial court's finding of ownership was based on a written agreement voluntarily executed by the appellant, not on the existence of a marriage.

Outcome

Application dismissed; appellant not permitted to introduce additional evidence on appeal

Facts

The appellant and respondent had lived together and had children. The respondent brought a land suit claiming the appellant voluntarily gave her a kibanja at Mulungi-omu, Luwero District, in writing before witnesses. The appellant denied ownership and claimed the land belonged to a third party. The trial court found for the respondent based on documentary evidence including a written agreement (PEX1) and witness testimony, declaring her the lawful owner and granting a permanent injunction, general damages and costs. On appeal, the appellant sought to introduce a letter from the Uganda Muslim Supreme Council dated 13 December 2024 asserting that the marriage certificate relied upon by the respondent at trial was false and not issued by the Council. The appellant contended this evidence was necessary to challenge the factual foundation of the trial court's decision regarding the parties' relationship.

Issues

  1. Whether the appellant should be granted leave to adduce additional evidence on appeal, namely a letter from the Uganda Muslim Supreme Council asserting that the marriage certificate relied upon at trial was false.
  2. Whether the proposed additional evidence could have been obtained with reasonable diligence at the time of trial.
  3. Whether the proposed additional evidence would probably have an important influence on the result of the appeal.

Orders

  • Application for leave to adduce additional evidence on appeal dismissed.
  • Costs of this application shall be in the cause.

Rules and key headnotes

Civil Procedure — Appeals — Additional Evidence — Conditions for Admission
An appellate court may exercise its discretion to admit additional evidence only in exceptional circumstances, including where new and important evidence is discovered which, after the exercise of due diligence, was not within the knowledge of or could not have been produced at trial by the party seeking to adduce it; the evidence must be relevant, credible, and such that if given it would probably have an important influence on the result of the case.
Evidence — Additional Evidence on Appeal — Requirement of Reasonable Diligence
Where an issue was clearly raised and traversed during trial and a party had full opportunity to interrogate the authenticity of evidence but failed to do so, the attempt to procure such evidence only after an adverse judgment does not satisfy the requirement of reasonable diligence for admission of additional evidence on appeal.
Civil Procedure — Appeals — Additional Evidence — Materiality Test
For additional evidence to be admitted on appeal, it must be such that it would probably have an important influence on the result of the case. Evidence that relates to background narrative but does not displace the juridical basis upon which the trial court's decision was founded does not meet the materiality requirement.
Evidence — Fraud — Effect on Judgment — Requirement that Fraud Go to the Root
While fraud vitiates all proceedings, for that principle to apply the alleged fraud must go to the root of the decision. Where alleged falsity of evidence relates to a matter that was not the foundation of the trial court's determination, it does not vitiate the substratum of the judgment.

Legislation cited (4)

Cases cited (3)

  • Aluma Michael Bayo & 2 Others v Said Nasur Okuti
  • Michael Mabikke v Law Development Centre (Supreme Court Misc. Application No. 16 of 2015)
  • Skone v Skone [1971] 1 WLR 812

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Katamba Mohammad v Nakyeyune Zam (Civil Appeal No. 32 of 2024) [2026] UGHC 342 (14 April 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.