Wakilii

Kwesigabo Johnson v National Housing & Construction Co. Ltd (Civil Suit No. 0214 of 2019; Miscellaneous Application No. 856 of 2024)

High Court · [2025] UGCOMMC 398 · 2025 Application Granted AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Application to reopen case and recall witness arising from civil suit for refund of overpayment
Decision
Application granted; applicant may reopen case and adduce fresh evidence

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 the application to reopen the case and recall the applicant as a witness to tender his public service appointment letter. The court held that where a respondent departs from pleadings and raises new matters during evidence, and the applicant seeks to adduce essential evidence that was unavailable earlier despite reasonable efforts, the court may exercise its discretion to reopen the case in the interests of justice and fair hearing, provided no prejudice results to the opposing party.

Outcome

Application granted; applicant may reopen case and adduce fresh evidence

Facts

The applicant purchased a flat at Buganda Road from the respondent for UGX 142,488,192. Following a presidential directive, the flats were to be sold at UGX 51,000,000 with a government subsidy of UGX 59,000,000 for civil servants. The government paid the subsidy to the respondent, who refused to refund the applicant UGX 91,488,192 in overpayment. The applicant sued for recovery. During trial, the respondent's witness testified that the applicant was not listed among confirmed sitting tenants who worked in public service and thus was ineligible for the subsidy. This issue was not raised in the respondent's pleadings. The applicant sought to reopen his case to tender his public service appointment letter, which he obtained from archives on 23 March 2024 after the hearing had closed.

Issues

  1. Whether the Applicant can reopen his case to adduce fresh evidence.
  2. What remedies are available to the parties.

Orders

  • Application granted.
  • Applicant permitted to reopen his case and tender evidence of his appointment to public service.
  • Costs of the application to be in the cause.

Rules and key headnotes

Civil Procedure — Reopening of Case — Grounds for Granting Leave
A court may grant leave to reopen a case where fresh evidence that was unavailable or not reasonably discoverable before becomes known and available, where there has been an inadvertent error, mistaken apprehension of facts, or mistaken apprehension of law, provided the evidence is essential for just determination and causes no prejudice to the opposing party.
Civil Procedure — Pleadings — Departure from Pleadings — Trial by Ambush
A party will not be allowed to succeed on a case not set up in pleadings and cannot at trial change their case or set up a case inconsistent with pleadings except by way of amendment. Where a defendant raises a new issue in evidence that was not pleaded, this constitutes a departure from pleadings and amounts to trial by ambush.
Civil Procedure — Recalling Witnesses — Discretion of Court — Order 18 Rule 13 CPR
Under Order 18 Rule 13 of the Civil Procedure Rules, the court may at any stage of the suit recall any witness who has been examined. This discretion must be exercised with caution and in exceptional circumstances where there is a need to hear all necessary evidence that would aid the court in delivering a just decision.
Civil Procedure — Fair Hearing — Right to Adduce Essential Evidence
Where evidence is necessary and essential to help the court determine the dispute between parties, and is not merely intended to fill gaps in a party's case but to ensure a fair hearing for both sides, the court should permit its introduction even after closure of hearing, particularly where the need arose from the opposing party's departure from pleadings.

Legislation cited (2)

Cases cited (4)

  • Tolit Charles Okiro v Otto Cipriano (High Court Civil Suit No. 0002 of 2019)
  • Kuringe Real Estates Versus NMB Bank PLC Commercial Case No. 104 of 2023
  • Onek Menacy & Another v Omona Micheal (Civil Appeal No. 032 of 2016)
  • Interfreight Forwarders (U) Ltd v East African Development Bank (Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 33 of 1992)

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Kwesigabo Johnson v National Housing & Construction Co. Ltd (Civil Suit No. 0214 of 2019; Miscellaneous Application No. 856 of 2024) [2025] UGCommC 398 (17 October 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.