Wakilii

Kiwanuka v Muwanga (Miscellaneous Application 105 of 2023)

High Court · [2024] UGHC 301 · 2024 Application Dismissed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Application for leave to adduce additional evidence in pending civil appeal arising from Chief Magistrates Court civil suit
Decision
Application for leave to adduce additional evidence dismissed with costs to the Respondent

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 applicant sought to introduce two land sale agreements as additional evidence. The court held that the documents were not new evidence but were within the applicant's knowledge at trial and deliberately not tendered. The applicant failed to satisfy the statutory requirements under Order 43 Rule 22 of the Civil Procedure Rules. Allowing such evidence would constitute abuse of process and permit a party to patch up weak points in their case on appeal.

Outcome

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

Facts

The applicant sued the respondent in Civil Suit No. 0062 of 2018 concerning land ownership. During trial, the applicant's counsel tendered photocopies of two land sale agreements dated 18 March 1989 and 23 January 2010. The trial court admitted the 1989 agreement as PE1 but declined to admit the 2010 agreement pending production of certified proceedings from a related Masaka case. The applicant's counsel subsequently informed the trial court he was not amending the plaint and was not relying on the 2010 agreement between the plaintiff and Nakibira, and proceeded with the case. The applicant lost at trial and filed Civil Appeal No. 13 of 2022 on 14 June 2022. On 18 May 2023, nearly a year after filing the appeal, the applicant sought leave to adduce the original agreements as additional evidence on appeal, contending they were key to determining ownership of the suit land.

Issues

  1. Whether the Applicant has satisfied the requirements for grant of leave 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 applicant seeking leave to file additional evidence on appeal must satisfy the requirements under Order 43 Rule 22(1) and (2) of the Civil Procedure Rules, including that the evidence constitutes discovery of new and important matters which, after exercise of due diligence, was not within the knowledge of or could not have been produced at trial; that the evidence is relevant and credible; and that it would probably influence the result of the case.
Civil Procedure — Additional Evidence on Appeal — Evidence Available at Trial
A party shall not be permitted to adduce additional evidence on appeal which is intended to patch up weak points in the case or remove a lacuna created at trial. Where evidence was within the applicant's knowledge during trial and was deliberately not adduced, it does not qualify as new evidence for purposes of Order 43 Rule 22 of the Civil Procedure Rules.
Civil Procedure — Additional Evidence on Appeal — Abuse of Process
Allowing an applicant to adduce on appeal evidence which was clearly and intentionally left out at trial constitutes a complete abuse of process. A party cannot be permitted to argue a fresh case on appeal which does not stem from the pleadings and evidence adduced during trial.
Civil Procedure — Additional Evidence on Appeal — Undue Delay
An application to admit additional evidence on appeal must be brought without undue delay. Where an application is filed almost a year after filing the appeal, such delay militates against granting leave to adduce additional evidence.

Legislation cited (7)

Cases cited (5)

  • Attorney General v Ssemwogerere (Constitutional Application No. 2 of 2004)
  • Bangirana Kawoya v National Council of Higher Education (Miscellaneous Application No. 8 of 2013)
  • Mabikke v Law Development Centre (Supreme Court Miscellaneous Application No. 16 of 2015)
  • SMT Ganga Devi & others Vs. Bhagwan Das & others, 2014 (106)
  • Safe Cargo Limited vs. Embakasi Properties Limited & 2 Others (2019) eKLR

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Kiwanuka v Muwanga (Miscellaneous Application 105 of 2023) [2024] UGHC 301 (3 April 2024)
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.