Wakilii

Liberty Construction Company v Lamba Enterprises Limited (Civil Appeal No. 318 of 2021)

Court of Appeal · [2022] UGCA 52 · 2022 Application Dismissed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Application to adduce additional evidence on appeal, arising out of Civil Appeal No. 36 of 2014
Decision
Application to adduce additional evidence dismissed with no order as to costs; parties at liberty to resolve the payment issue by agreement

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 of Appeal dismissed an application to adduce a bank statement as additional evidence on appeal. Applying the settled conditions—that evidence be new, important, credible, and not discoverable through due diligence before or during trial—the Court held the applicant failed the due diligence requirement. As a construction company with access to automated RTGS records and its own bank statements, it could have obtained and adduced the document at trial. The Court emphasised that the appellate process must not become a forum for patching gaps in evidence. Because the respondent did not oppose the application, no order as to costs was made, and the parties were free to resolve the payment issue by agreement.

Outcome

Application to adduce additional evidence dismissed with no order as to costs; parties at liberty to resolve the payment issue by agreement

Facts

The applicant filed a suit at the High Court Commercial Division seeking recovery of construction sites held by the respondent after termination of subcontracts. The respondent counterclaimed to enforce a memorandum of understanding. The head suit was dismissed and the counterclaim, though dismissed on account of duress, resulted in remedies granted on a quantum meruit basis. The applicant appealed (Civil Appeal No. 36 of 2014) contending the reliefs were neither pleaded nor prayed for. The applicant then sought to adduce additional evidence—an Orient Bank statement—showing an RTGS payment of UGX 125 million to the respondent on 23 May 2008, which it claimed the trial judge omitted (having considered only UGX 25 million). The respondent did not object in principle but sought time to verify the statement's authenticity and filed no submissions in opposition.

Issues

  1. Whether the applicant satisfied the conditions for leave to adduce additional evidence on appeal, in particular whether the bank statement was newly discovered evidence not obtainable through due diligence at the time of trial.

Orders

  • Application dismissed.
  • No order as to costs.

Rules and key headnotes

Appeals — Additional Evidence on Appeal — Conditions for Admission
The Court of Appeal may, in its discretion and for sufficient reason, admit additional evidence on appeal only where the evidence is new and important, could not have been discovered through due diligence before or during trial, is relevant and credible, is capable of influencing the result, is attached to the supporting affidavit, and the application is brought without delay.
Additional Evidence — Due Diligence — Records Within Party's Own Control
Documents such as a party's own bank statements, which exist in electronic form and are within the party's own control and knowledge, cannot constitute newly discovered evidence; a party expected to keep proper books of account and conduct routine reconciliations fails the due diligence requirement where such records could have been obtained before or during trial.
Appeals — Abuse of Process — Purpose of the Stringent Rule
The stringent rule governing the admission of additional evidence on appeal exists to prevent abuse of process; the appellate court must not be turned into a forum for parties to patch up gaps in evidence that they ought to have adduced before the trial court.

Legislation cited (5)

Cases cited (2)

  • Attorney General v Paul K. Ssemwogerere and Others (Constitutional Application No. 2 of 2004)
  • Bismillah Trading Limited v Falcon Estates Ltd (Civil Application No. 328 of 2018)

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Liberty Construction Company v Lamba Enterprises Limited (Civil Appeal No. 318 of 2021) [2022] UGCA 52 (24 February 2022)
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.