Wakilii

Legal Brains Trust (LBT) Ltd v Attorney General (Miscellaneous Application No. 599 of 2021)

High Court · [2025] UGHCCD 96 · 2025 Application Partly Allowed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Application for discovery, production and inspection of documents and further and better particulars arising from Miscellaneous Cause No. 225 of 2021
Decision
Application partly allowed; respondent ordered to produce specified documents for guarded inspection; request for further and better particulars 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 court held that an applicant seeking discovery must satisfy four conditions: the power is discretionary, the document exists and is in the respondent's possession, the document is relevant to the matter in issue, and the application is not a fishing expedition. The court found that the documents sought—memorandum of understanding, agreement, financial model, due diligence report, and technical and financial assessment report—existed, were relevant to the human rights enforcement action in the main cause, and were not sought as a fishing expedition. Claims of confidentiality and national security do not automatically bar production; the court may order guarded inspection and determine privilege claims after reviewing the documents. The application for further and better particulars was rejected as overboard and unduly burdensome where the information sought would be contained in the documents ordered to be produced.

Outcome

Application partly allowed; respondent ordered to produce specified documents for guarded inspection; request for further and better particulars dismissed

Facts

The applicant filed Miscellaneous Cause No. 225 of 2021 against the respondent seeking declarations and orders concerning a public-private partnership project between the Government of Uganda and Joint Stock Global Security Company for an intelligent transport monitoring system for motor vehicles and motorcycles. The respondent filed an affidavit in reply referring to various documents including a memorandum of understanding, an agreement, a financial model, due diligence reports, and technical and financial capacity assessment reports. The applicant served a request for further and better particulars and a notice to produce documents, which the respondent refused on grounds that the documents contained confidential information that could infringe the investor's right to privacy and pose a threat to national security. The applicant then brought this application under the Civil Procedure Rules seeking orders for production, inspection, and copying of the documents, as well as further and better particulars. The respondent opposed the application, arguing it was a fishing expedition and that disclosure would breach confidentiality and threaten national security.

Issues

  1. Whether the application discloses sufficient grounds for grant of orders of discovery, production and inspection of the named documents and the further and better particulars sought?

Orders

  • The respondent shall, within sixty (60) days, produce in court for inspection the memorandum of understanding and agreement executed with Joint Stock Global Security Company, the financial model for the project, the due diligence report and the technical and financial assessment report for the project as referred to in the affidavit in reply deposed by Haji Kakande Yunusu in Misc. Cause No. 225 of 2021.
  • The production of the said documents shall be for purpose of inspection before the court and for court-use only; and no publication of the same shall be done by any of the parties or their privies unless the court has, during the hearing and determination of the matter, pronounced itself on the questions of alleged confidentiality or privilege concerning the subject documents or unless otherwise authorized.
  • The costs of the application shall be in the cause.

Rules and key headnotes

Discovery and Inspection — Conditions for Grant of Order
Before the court can grant an order of discovery or inspection, four conditions must be satisfied: (a) the power to grant the order is discretionary; (b) the document exists and is in possession or control of the respondent; (c) the document relates and is relevant to the matter in issue in the action; and (d) the application is not a fishing expedition.
Discovery — Fishing Expedition — Test
Discovery should not be used as a fishing expedition for the applicant to build up a case that he is unsure of. The information sought to be discovered must be particularly stated and consistent with the applicant's case and should not go beyond the allegations in the pleadings. The application becomes a fishing expedition when the process is used to discover whether there is a case at all rather than support well-founded grounds.
Discovery — Disputed Facts — Construction in Favour of Discovery
When disputed facts provide a basis for the exercise of discretion in discovery applications, those facts should be literally construed in favour of discovery.
Further and Better Particulars — Overboard and Unduly Burdensome Requests
Where an applicant seeks production of documents and simultaneously seeks further and better particulars of information that would be contained in those same documents, the request for particulars may be rejected as overboard and unduly burdensome. A request for particulars that does not pass the threshold of not being far-fetched, vague or ambiguous will be refused.
Discovery — Confidentiality and Privilege — Guarded Inspection
Claims of confidentiality, privacy, or national security do not automatically bar production of documents. Where such claims are made, the court may order production for guarded inspection before the court and for court-use only, with no publication by the parties unless the court has pronounced itself on the questions of confidentiality or privilege. The court is empowered under Order 10 rule 19(2) of the Civil Procedure Rules to inspect documents for the purpose of deciding as to the validity of claims of privilege.
Public Private Partnerships — Disclosure of Information — Statutory Framework
Under section 46 of the Public Private Partnership Act Cap 111, a contracting authority shall upon written request disclose information regarding a public-private partnership, subject to exceptions where disclosure would prejudice state security or sovereignty, interfere with the right to privacy, breach the law or impede law enforcement, or disclose proprietary information, trade secrets, or information supplied in confidence by a bidder. The claim that disclosure may prejudice security or privacy cannot be investigated and determined in the absence of the documents themselves.

Legislation cited (11)

Cases cited (7)

  • John Kato v Muhlbauer & Another (Miscellaneous Application No. 333 of 2010)
  • Dresdner Bank Ag v Sango Bay Estates Ltd (No. 3) [1971] 1 EA 326
  • Dresdner Bank Ag v Sango Bay Estates Ltd (No. 4) [1971] 1 EA 409
  • John Kato v Muhlbaeur and Another (High Court Miscellaneous Application No. 175 of 2011)
  • Gale v Denman Picture Houses Ltd [1930] KB 588
  • Simbamanyo Estates Ltd & Another v Equity Bank Ltd & Others (High Court Miscellaneous Application No. 583 of 2022)
  • Loftin v Martin 776 S.W. 2d 145 (1989)

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Legal Brains Trust (LBT) Ltd v Attorney General (Miscellaneous Application No. 599 of 2021) [2025] UGHCCD 96 (4 July 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.