Wakilii

Kirungi Baala and Others v Silvano Kituti (FPT-00-CV-LD-CS-009-2023; HCT-01-LD-CA-0028-2025; HCT-01-LD-MA-0122-2025)

High Court · [2026] UGHC 265 · 2026 Application Dismissed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Miscellaneous application for leave to adduce additional evidence on appeal arising from a civil appeal from the Chief Magistrate's Court
Decision
Application for leave to adduce additional evidence dismissed

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 dismissed an application for leave to adduce additional evidence on appeal. The court held that the trial magistrate did not refuse to admit evidence which ought to have been admitted; rather, the applicants failed to comply with evidentiary requirements by not calling the author or signatory of the documents to prove their execution. The applicants' status as unrepresented lay litigants did not constitute substantial cause to admit additional evidence where they had been expressly guided on proper procedure but failed to follow it.

Outcome

Application for leave to adduce additional evidence dismissed

Facts

The applicants, children of the late Mugisa Oliver, were defendants in a land suit brought by the respondent claiming ownership of land at Kagote Parish. The trial magistrate found for the respondent, holding that the applicants' mother had occupied the land as a tenant at will. The applicants appealed and sought leave to adduce additional evidence: a document dated 17 June 2008 in Runyakitara (marked DID1 pending translation) and an English document dated 14 February 2017. During trial, the applicants were unrepresented lay litigants. On 14 March 2024, DID1 was marked for identification pending translation. On 11 September 2024, when the second applicant sought to tender the documents, the trial court sustained an objection that he was neither the author nor addressee and advised calling a competent witness. The applicants did not do so.

Issues

  1. Whether this application raises grounds to warrant the grant of leave to adduce additional evidence in Civil Appeal No. 28 of 2025?
  2. What remedies are available to the parties?

Orders

  • Application dismissed.
  • Costs shall be in the cause.

Rules and key headnotes

Civil Procedure — Additional Evidence on Appeal — Order 43 Rule 22 — Conditions for Admission
Parties to an appeal are not entitled as of right to adduce additional evidence. An appellate court may allow additional evidence only where the trial court refused to admit evidence which ought to have been admitted, or where the appellate court requires the evidence to pronounce judgment, or for any other substantial cause.
Evidence — Proof of Documents — Best Evidence Rule — Requirement to Call Author or Signatory
Under the best evidence rule codified in Sections 63, 64, and 67 of the Evidence Act, documents must be proved by primary evidence through a competent witness who can authenticate the document. Where a document is signed by identifiable persons, proper proof requires the testimony of at least one signatory or a person competent to speak to its authorship and execution.
Civil Procedure — Unrepresented Litigants — Relaxation of Procedural Rules — Limits
While courts should accord a measure of latitude to unrepresented lay litigants to ensure substantive justice is not sacrificed to procedural technicality, this relaxation does not extend to the wholesale disregard of substantive rules of evidence. Where a trial court expressly guides an unrepresented litigant on the proper evidentiary steps required and the litigant fails to comply, this does not constitute substantial cause to reopen the evidentiary record on appeal.
Evidence — Documents in Vernacular Languages — Requirement for Translation — Section 88 Civil Procedure Act
Under Section 88 of the Civil Procedure Act, the language of all courts shall be English and evidence shall be recorded in English. Documents in a language other than English must be accompanied by a certified translation to enable the court to comprehend their contents and relevance. A trial court acts properly in marking a vernacular document for identification pending translation.
Civil Procedure — Additional Evidence on Appeal — Failure to Exercise Due Diligence at Trial
An applicant seeking to adduce additional evidence on appeal must demonstrate that the earlier omission was unavoidable despite the exercise of reasonable diligence. Lack of legal representation and unfamiliarity with procedure, standing alone, do not meet the strict legal threshold under Order 43 Rule 22 where the applicant was expressly guided by the trial court on the proper course to take but failed to follow that guidance.

Legislation cited (15)

Cases cited (12)

  • Makubuya Enock William T/a Polly Post v Bulaim Muwanga Kibirige T/a Kowloon Garment Industry (Supreme Court Civil Application No. 133 of 2014)
  • Bangirana Kawoya v National Council for Higher Education (Miscellaneous Application No. 8 of 2013)
  • Oola v Okello (High Court Civil Revision No. 8 of 2017)
  • Mulindwa George William v Kisibika Joseph (Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 12 of 2014)
  • Musisi v Edco Ltd (Miscellaneous Application No. 36 of 2013)
  • G.M Combined U Ltd v A K Detergents & 4 Others (Supreme Court Civil Application No. 7 of 1998)
  • Kachra Investments Co. Ltd v Mbale Municipal Council (Court of Appeal Miscellaneous Application No. 109 of 2015)
  • Safina Bakulimya & Another v Yusufu Wamala (High Court Civil Appeal No. 0068 of 2007)
  • Michael Mabikke v Law Development Center (Supreme Court Miscellaneous Application No. 16 of 2015)
  • Attorney General v Paul Kawanga Semwogerere (Supreme Court Constitutional Application No. 2 of 2004)
  • Smt. Ganga Devi (dead) vs. Bhagwan Dass & others, Civil Miscellaneous Application No. 306325 of 2013
  • Karmal Tarmuhamed & Anor vs. I.H Lakhani & Company (1956) E.A 567

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Kirungi Baala and Others v Silvano Kituti (FPT-00-CV-LD-CS-009-2023; HCT-01-LD-CA-0028-2025; HCT-01-LD-MA-0122-2025) [2026] UGHC 265 (24 March 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.