Wakilii

Makubuya v Muwanga (Civil Application No. 133 of 2014)

Court of Appeal · [2014] UGCA 82 · 2014 Application Referred to Full Court AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Application before a single Justice of the Court of Appeal seeking leave to adduce additional evidence on appeal
Decision
Application referred to the full Court of Appeal for determination

Observed later treatment

Treatment recorded in citing cases followed in 1 Sequitur — Uganda’s citator · Derived from citing cases in the Wakilii corpus — not an assertion that this case is good law.

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.

Good law Followed in 1 case and applied in 0 cases, with no adverse treatment recorded. Citations steady — 11 citing cases on record, 5 in the most recent three data years. Derived from citing cases in the Wakilii corpus — a deterministic signal, not legal advice.

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 single Justice held that, while a single Justice of the Court of Appeal has jurisdiction to hear an application to adduce additional evidence (it not being among the matters reserved to a full Court under Rule 53(2)), the issue in this case was intertwined with the substance of the appeal and the six stringent principles for admitting additional evidence have a critical impact on disposal of the whole appeal. The application was therefore referred to the full Court for determination, with costs to abide the outcome of the main appeal.

Outcome

Application referred to the full Court of Appeal for determination

Facts

The applicant sought leave to adduce additional evidence to be relied upon during the hearing of Civil Appeal No. 122 of 2013. He contended that the additional evidence (annexures on the record of appeal) was within the possession of his former lawyers but, through their negligence, was not brought to the attention of the trial judge during Civil Suit No. 37 of 2013. He argued the evidence was credible, material and relevant and, had it been adduced, would have shown the matter was res judicata. The respondent opposed the application, contending the evidence was not new, was always in the applicant's possession, and was deliberately left out by counsel as irrelevant, with no proof of negligence. Both counsel agreed that a single Justice had jurisdiction to hear the application.

Issues

  1. Whether a single Justice of the Court of Appeal should hear and dispose of an application to adduce additional evidence on appeal.
  2. Whether the application to adduce additional evidence satisfied the conditions for admission of additional evidence on appeal.

Orders

  • Application referred to the full Court for determination under Rule 2(2) and Rule 53(1) of the Court of Appeal Rules.
  • Costs of the application to abide the outcome of the main appeal.

Rules and key headnotes

Court of Appeal — Jurisdiction of a Single Justice — Interlocutory Applications
A single Justice of the Court of Appeal may exercise any power vested in the Court in any interlocutory cause or matter, and may hear an application for leave to adduce additional evidence where such an application is not among the matters reserved to a full Court under Rule 53(2) of the Court of Appeal Rules.
Court of Appeal — Single Justice — Referral of Application to Full Court
Although a single Justice has jurisdiction to hear an application to adduce additional evidence, where the issue is intertwined with the substance of the appeal and its determination has a critical impact on disposal of the whole appeal, the single Justice may, in the interests of justice, refer the application to the full Court which has power to determine the appeal.
Additional Evidence on Appeal — Conditions for Admission
An appellate court may exercise its discretion to admit additional evidence only in exceptional circumstances: where there is discovery of new and important evidence not obtainable with due diligence at trial; the evidence is relevant and credible; it would probably influence the result; the supporting affidavit attaches proof of the evidence; and the application is brought without undue delay. Courts should be even more stringent where the case has already been completed on appeal.

Legislation cited (7)

Cases cited (2)

  • Hon. Bangirana Kawoya vs National Council of Higher Education Misc. Application No.8 of 2013
  • Attorney General v Ssemwogerere (Constitutional Application No. 2 of 2004)

Cases citing this judgment (10)

How later Ugandan judgments in the Wakilii corpus have cited this case. Treatment labels come from Sequitur — Uganda’s citator — each backed by a verbatim span from the citing judgment, and are not an assertion that this case is, or is not, good law.

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Makubuya v Muwanga (Civil Application No. 133 of 2014) [2014] UGCA 82 (31 July 2014)
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.