Wakilii

Malaba Town Council v Ekel Martin (MISC. APPLICATION NO. 15 OF 2025)

High Court · [2025] UGHC 430 · 2025 Application Dismissed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Interlocutory application to recall witness for further cross-examination arising from Civil Suit No. 032 of 2022
Decision
Application dismissed with costs to the respondent

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 dismissed an application to recall a witness for further cross-examination on the ground that the witness had not attached his registration and practicing certificate. The Court held that the application was brought in bad faith, was prejudicial to the respondent given the case had been ongoing for ten years, and that the failure to ask about the certificate during cross-examination was counsel's oversight that should not be remedied by recalling the witness. The proper forum for challenging the witness's qualifications was in final submissions.

Outcome

Application dismissed with costs to the respondent

Facts

Malaba Town Council applied to recall Ochwo Ochieng Ojomoko, a witness who had testified for the respondent as a Property Valuation Surveyor in Civil Suit No. 032 of 2022. The witness had been cross-examined but had not attached his registration and practicing certificate to his witness statement. Counsel for the applicant forgot to ask about the certificate during cross-examination. A subsequent search with the Surveyors Registration Board did not find the witness's name on the list. The applicant sought to recall the witness to clarify his registration status and produce the certificate. The respondent opposed, arguing the application was brought in bad faith to delay a case that had been ongoing for ten years, and that counsel had ample time to prepare for and complete cross-examination.

Issues

  1. Whether the Court should recall Ochwo Ochieng Ojomoko for further cross-examination.
  2. What remedies are available to the parties.

Orders

  • Application dismissed.
  • Costs awarded to the respondent.

Rules and key headnotes

Civil Procedure — Recall of Witnesses — Discretion of Court — Grounds for Exercise
A court may recall a witness under Order 18 Rule 13 of the Civil Procedure Rules, but should not permit recall for the sole purpose of filling gaps in a party's case when all procedures regulating the trial have been exhausted, particularly where counsel had ample opportunity to cross-examine the witness and completed that cross-examination.
Civil Procedure — Recall of Witnesses — Prejudice to Opposite Party
Where recalling a witness would cause prejudice to the opposite party, particularly in a case that has been ongoing for many years and is at the verge of conclusion, the court should refuse permission to recall the witness.
Evidence — Expert Witnesses — Professional Qualifications — Challenge to Credentials
Where an expert witness has not attached professional registration and practicing certificates to a witness statement and counsel failed to ask about such credentials during cross-examination, the proper forum for challenging the witness's qualifications is in final submissions, not through an application to recall the witness.

Legislation cited (1)

Cases cited (2)

  • Tolit Charles Okiro v Otto Cipriano (HCCS No. 002 of 2019)
  • Kuringe Real Estates versus NMB Bank PLC (TZ HC CD 104 of 2023)

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Malaba Town Council v Ekel Martin (MISC. APPLICATION NO. 15 OF 2025) [2025] UGHC 430 (30 April 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.