Wakilii

Kisoke and Another v Katalihwa (Miscellaneous Application No. 118 of 2022)

High Court · [2023] UGHCCD 103 · 2023 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 arising from Civil Appeal No. 20 of 2021
Decision
Application for leave to adduce additional evidence dismissed with costs to the respondent

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

The High Court dismissed an application for leave to adduce additional evidence on appeal. The court held that most of the documents sought to be adduced were already attached to the defence filed at trial and thus not new evidence. The remaining documents, being sale agreements, constituted a departure from the original pleadings in which the applicants claimed to be first settlers rather than purchasers. The applicants failed to satisfy the legal requirements for admitting additional evidence on appeal.

Outcome

Application for leave to adduce additional evidence dismissed with costs to the respondent

Facts

The applicants sought leave to adduce additional documentary evidence on appeal arising from a land dispute decided against them in the Chief Magistrate's Court. The applicants claimed that the late Kisoke Samson William had kept documents relating to a 300-acre land parcel which the first applicant only discovered after his death. The documents included receipts from 1974, a 1991 lease offer, a map, letters from land authorities, and two sale agreements from 2005 and 2008. The respondent opposed the application, arguing that most documents were already attached to the defence filed at trial, that the sale agreements constituted a departure from the pleadings, and that the application was brought after inordinate delay. The respondent had already executed the judgment and was in occupation of 50 acres handed over by a co-defendant.

Issues

  1. Whether leave should be granted to the applicants to adduce additional evidence on appeal.

Orders

  • Application dismissed.
  • Costs awarded to the Respondent.

Rules and key headnotes

Civil Procedure — Additional Evidence on Appeal — Requirements for Leave
An appellate court has discretion to allow parties to adduce additional evidence on appeal only in exceptional circumstances. The evidence must be new and important, not within the party's knowledge or producible at trial despite due diligence, relevant to the issues, credible, and capable of influencing the result. The power to receive additional evidence should be used sparingly.
Evidence — Additional Evidence on Appeal — Documents Already in Possession at Trial
Documents that were within a party's full knowledge before and during trial but which the party preferred not to adduce cannot qualify as new evidence for purposes of an application to adduce additional evidence on appeal. Such an application constitutes an impermissible attempt to reopen the case and patch up weak points.
Civil Procedure — Pleadings — Departure from Pleadings on Appeal
A party cannot be allowed to adduce evidence on appeal that constitutes a complete departure from the original pleadings. Where a defendant claimed to have acquired land as first settlers but seeks to adduce sale agreements on appeal without having pleaded purchase in the defence, such evidence amounts to an afterthought and cannot be admitted.

Legislation cited (5)

Cases cited (11)

  • Aluma and 2 Others v Okuti (Miscellaneous Application No. 12 of 2016)
  • Bangirana Kawoya v National Council for Higher Education (Miscellaneous Application No. 8 of 2013)
  • Makubuya Enock William v Muwanga Kibirige (Civil Appeal No. 133 of 2014)
  • Brown v Dean [1910] AC 373
  • Attorney General v Byaruhanga John and 2499 Others (Miscellaneous Application No. 239 of 2021)
  • Smt Ganga Devi & others Vs. Bhagwan Das & others, 2014 (106) ALR 295
  • Micheal Mabikke v Law Development Centre (Supreme Court Miscellaneous Application No. 16 of 2015)
  • Attorney General v Paul Kawanga Semwogerere (Supreme Court Constitutional Application No. 2 of 2004)
  • Mohammed Abdi Mohamud vs. Ahmed Abdulahi Mohamad & 3 Others [2018] eKLR
  • Safe Cargo Limited vs. Embakasi Properties Limited & 2 Others (2019) eKLR
  • Karmal Tarmuhamed and Another v I.H Lakhani & Company (1956) EA 567

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.

Kisoke and Another v Katalihwa (Miscellaneous Application No. 118 of 2022) [2023] UGHCCD 103 (17 April 2023)
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.