Wakilii

Kateregga Hassan and Another v Ssebunya Wilson (Miscellaneous Application No. 2133 of 2025)

High Court · [2025] UGCOMMC 409 · 2025 Application Granted AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Interlocutory application for discovery of bank statements arising from civil suit for breach of contract
Decision
Order for discovery granted; respondent to produce bank statements for specified period

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 order for discovery compelling the respondent to avail certified copies of bank statements for the period January to December 2022. The court held that the bank statements were relevant and material to the applicants' defence in the underlying breach of contract suit, as they would aid in proving whether payments had been deposited on the respondent's account. Two preliminary objections were overruled: the court invoked Article 126(2)(e) of the Constitution to allow written submissions filed out of time where no prejudice was shown, and found that the affidavit in rejoinder was not argumentative. The court applied the four prerequisites for discovery: relevance and materiality, absence of privilege, possession by the respondent, and attempts to obtain voluntarily.

Outcome

Order for discovery granted; respondent to produce bank statements for specified period

Facts

The respondent instituted Civil Suit No. 526 of 2025 against the applicants seeking recovery of UGX 100,000,000 being the alleged outstanding balance on a land purchase agreement executed on 18 November 2019. The parties agreed to a purchase price of UGX 300,000,000 for land at Kyadondo Block 216 Plot 4747 at Ntinda-Buuye Kigoowa, Nakawa Division, Kampala. The applicants paid UGX 200,000,000 at execution, leaving a balance of UGX 100,000,000 to be paid within six months. The applicants disputed the outstanding amount, averring that the balance was only UGX 20,500,000 and that they had made further payments in cash and by deposit on the respondent's Post Bank Uganda Limited account in 2022. The applicants could not retrieve the bank statements without the respondent's consent and sought a court order compelling production of certified copies of the respondent's bank statements for January to December 2022 to prove their defence.

Issues

  1. Whether the Court should grant an order for discovery of the documents?
  2. What remedies are available to the parties?

Orders

  • The Respondent shall avail the Applicants with certified copies of his bank statements with Post Bank Uganda Limited account No. 1030000062080 for the period from January, 2022 to December, 2022.
  • Costs of the application shall be in the cause.

Rules and key headnotes

Discovery — Prerequisites for Grant of Order — Relevance and Materiality
For an order for discovery to be granted, the applicant must satisfy four prerequisites: (1) the documents sought must be relevant and material to the case; (2) the documents must not be privileged or protected by law; (3) the documents must be in the respondent's possession, custody, control or power; and (4) attempts to obtain the documents voluntarily must have been futile.
Discovery — Relevance and Materiality — Test
A document is material if it is being offered to prove an element of a claim or defence that needs to be established for one side or the other to prevail. The applicant must show a reasonable expectation that the material sought will aid in the resolution of the suit. In determining relevance, there must be reference to the pleadings to find that the head action is maintainable at law or at least arguable, that the application will lead to discovery of admissible evidence, and that the document is offered to prove an element of a claim or defence.
Discovery — Prior Request Not Fatal — Good Faith Conferral Requirement
While parties must first confer in good faith to resolve discovery disputes before seeking a court order, failure to make a prior discovery request is not automatically fatal to an application for discovery. Where the applicant has made their intention to seek the documents known in their pleadings, non-compliance with the requirement to make a prior request is not fatal to the application.
Preliminary Objections — Substantive Justice — Late Filing of Submissions
Under Article 126(2)(e) of the Constitution, courts are enjoined to administer substantive justice and avoid technicalities. Where written submissions are filed out of time but the opposing party subsequently files their reply submissions and raises no issue regarding inconvenience suffered, the court may invoke Article 126(2)(e) and Section 98 of the Civil Procedure Act to allow the late submissions where no prejudice is shown.
Affidavits — Rejoinder Affidavit — Argumentative Averments
An affidavit in rejoinder is not defective merely because it contains details of amounts paid and dates of alleged payments that are relevant to the application at hand. Averments that are relevant to the determination of the application are not argumentative within the meaning of Order 19 rule 3(2) of the Civil Procedure Rules.

Legislation cited (13)

Cases cited (9)

  • Oriental Insurance Brokers Limited v Transocean (U) Limited (Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 55 of 1995)
  • Uganda Telecom Limited v ZTE Corporation (Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 03 of 2017)
  • Kasaala Growers Co-operative Society v Kakooza Jonathan and Another (Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 19 of 2010)
  • Banco Arabe Espanol v Bank of Uganda (Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 8 of 1998)
  • Patricia Mutesi v Attorney General (High Court Miscellaneous Application No. 912 of 2016)
  • John Kato v Muhlbauer A.G and Another (High Court Miscellaneous Application No. 175 of 2011)
  • Simbamanyo Estates Ltd and Peter Kamya v Equity Uganda Ltd & 4 Others (High Court Miscellaneous Application No. 582 of 2022)
  • Kaweesi Sulaiman and 26 Others v Bank of Uganda & Another (High Court Miscellaneous Application No. 258 of 2022)
  • Pegasus Technologies Limited v Uganda Revenue Authority & Another (High Court Miscellaneous Application No. 29 of 2023)

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Kateregga Hassan and Another v Ssebunya Wilson (Miscellaneous Application No. 2133 of 2025) [2025] UGCommC 409 (7 November 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.