Wakilii

Latim v Lajul (Miscellaneous Application 247 of 2022)

High Court · [2024] UGHC 255 · 2024 Application Dismissed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Application to adduce additional evidence arising from Civil Appeal No. 065 of 2022
Decision
Application 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

An applicant seeking to adduce additional evidence on appeal must demonstrate that the evidence could not have been obtained with reasonable diligence for use at trial. The Court dismissed the application where documents were available at trial, had been tendered for identification but not certified, and where the applicant provided no justification for failing to secure certified copies during the nine-year pendency of the suit. Public documents are expected to be certified before or during trial.

Outcome

Application to adduce additional evidence dismissed

Facts

In 2013, Drucilla Lajul instituted a civil suit against Pilimena Ojera and the Applicant, Latim Ronald, claiming ownership of approximately 0.5 acres of land in Gulu district. The trial Magistrate dismissed the suit against Pilimena Ojera but found for Drucilla Lajul against the Applicant, awarding damages of UGX 20,000,000 and issuing eviction and injunction orders. The Applicant appealed to the High Court. Before the appeal was heard, the Applicant filed a miscellaneous application seeking leave to adduce additional evidence, including a 1993 building permit issued to his late father Kilama Andrew Jimma, ground rent receipts, and approved building plans. The Applicant claimed these documents had been lost during trial but were subsequently recovered. The Respondent opposed, arguing that the Applicant had nine years to secure the documents, that some had been tendered for identification at trial but not certified, and that the application did not meet the legal requirements.

Issues

  1. Whether the applicant met the conditions for adducing additional evidence on appeal.

Orders

  • Application dismissed.
  • Costs awarded to the Respondent.

Rules and key headnotes

Civil Procedure — Additional Evidence on Appeal — Conditions for Admission
An appellate court may admit additional evidence only in exceptional circumstances, including where the applicant demonstrates that the evidence could not have been obtained with reasonable diligence for use at trial, that the evidence is relevant and credible, and that it would probably have an important influence on the result of the case.
Evidence — Documentary Evidence — Certification of Public Documents
Where documents are public documents and were available or had been tendered for identification during trial, the failure to secure certified copies during the pendency of proceedings demonstrates a lack of reasonable diligence and will preclude admission as additional evidence on appeal.
Civil Procedure — Additional Evidence — Burden of Proof on Applicant
The burden is on an applicant seeking to adduce additional evidence on appeal to prove that each condition for admission is satisfied. Where the applicant fails to demonstrate that the first condition (reasonable diligence) is met, the court need not consider whether the other conditions are satisfied.

Legislation cited (7)

Cases cited (5)

  • Idrifua Patrick v Uganda (HCCA No. 0036 of 2016)
  • Ladd v Marshall [1954] 1 WLR 1489
  • Aluma Michael Bayo and Others v Said Nasur Okuto (HCM No. 0012 of 2016)
  • Karmali Tarmohamed and Another v I.H. Lakhani and Co. [1958] EA 567
  • Michael Mabikke v Law Development Centre (SCMA No. 16 of 2015)

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Latim v Lajul (Miscellaneous Application 247 of 2022) [2024] UGHC 255 (2 May 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.