Wakilii

Keeble v Shelton (Civil Appeal No. 3 of 1948)

East African Court of Appeal · [1948] EACA 5 · 1948 Appeal Dismissed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Civil appeal from decision of High Court of Uganda concerning partnership accounts and objections to Referee's report
Decision
Appeal dismissed and Referee's report substantially adopted by the Court

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 held that a Referee's report is evidence in a suit and that the Court has inherent power to call upon the Referee for explanations about the report. Where no evidence is called by either party to contradict or modify the Referee's report, criticism is restricted to errors apparent on the face of the report. The Court was justified in accepting the uncontradicted Referee's report.

Outcome

Appeal dismissed and Referee's report substantially adopted by the Court

Facts

In a suit between two parties concerning partnership accounts, the Court ordered that an account be taken and appointed a Referee. The Referee submitted a report with attached accounts dealing with work done prior to 1st September 1946 and made up to 31st August 1947, based on the partnership books. The plaintiff (appellant) objected to the Referee's report but neither party called the Referee as a witness. The Court below expressed the view that it would be improper to call the Referee and substantially adopted the report. The appellant appealed, challenging the acceptance of the report.

Issues

  1. Whether the Court has inherent power to call upon a Referee appointed to take accounts for explanations about his report.
  2. Whether the Referee's report was properly accepted by the Court below in the absence of contradictory evidence.

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed.
  • Referee's report upheld.

Rules and key headnotes

Civil Procedure — Referees — Nature and Effect of Referee's Report
A Referee's report is evidence in a suit, being the evidence of an expert witness appointed by the Court, and is entitled to due weight but must be considered in relation to other evidence given by the parties when the report comes up for consideration.
Civil Procedure — Referees — Court's Power to Call Referee for Explanations
It is within the inherent powers of the Court, either ex proprio motu or on the application of either party, to call upon a Referee, who is ad hoc an officer of the Court, for any explanations that the Court may consider necessary about the Referee's report.
Civil Procedure — Referees — Criticism of Report Without Evidence
Where both parties elect to discuss a Referee's report without calling the Referee or any witness to the facts covered by the report, criticism of the report is restricted to errors apparent on the face of the report, whether of fact or law.
Civil Procedure — Referees — Distinction from Arbitrator's Award
A Referee's report is not of the nature of an award by an arbitrator but is evidence in the suit which must be considered in relation to other evidence, if any, given by the parties.
Civil Procedure — Referees — Acceptance of Uncontradicted Report
Where a Referee's report is the only evidence before the Court and no application is made to cross-examine the Referee or to lead evidence contradicting or modifying the report, the Court is justified in accepting the uncontradicted evidence of the Referee's report.

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Keeble v Shelton (Civil Appeal No. 3 of 1948) [1948] EACA 5 (1 January 1948)
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.