Wakilii

Monkey Adventures LLC and Others v Mweteise Godwin and Others [2026] UGCOMMC 234

High Court · 2026 Application Granted AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Interlocutory application to reopen case and introduce new evidence in consolidated civil suits
Decision
Application granted; applicants permitted to reopen case and adduce additional evidence

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 Commercial Division held that applicants may reopen their case to introduce WhatsApp messages and videos retrieved from a repaired mobile phone. The court applied the test requiring the moving party to show the evidence would probably have changed the result if presented at trial and could not have been obtained by reasonable diligence before trial. The court found the evidence relevant to contractual obligations between parties, that respondents would not be prejudiced as they could cross-examine witnesses, and that authenticity concerns could be addressed through rules governing digital evidence admissibility.

Outcome

Application granted; applicants permitted to reopen case and adduce additional evidence

Facts

The applicants were plaintiffs in consolidated civil suits Nos. 0862 of 2023 and 0275 of 2023. After the hearing of the plaintiffs' case was concluded and closed, and the matter set down for hearing of the defence case, the applicants sought to reopen their case to introduce WhatsApp messages and videos as new evidence. The applicants claimed this evidence was contained in a mobile phone that had suffered a technical malfunction and required repair to retrieve the data, which included conversations dating back to 2022. The applicants produced proof of payment for the phone repair. The respondents opposed the application, arguing the evidence was not new as it was available to all applicants through a joint WhatsApp group, that it could not be verified and may have been doctored, and that the application was a delaying tactic and abuse of court process.

Issues

  1. Whether the applicants should be allowed to reopen their case and introduce new evidence in consolidated civil suits Nos. 0862 and 0275 of 2023.

Orders

  • Application allowed.
  • Applicants permitted to reopen their case in consolidated suits No. 0862 of 2023 and No. 0275 of 2023.
  • Applicants permitted to introduce new evidence as prayed.
  • Costs in the cause.

Rules and key headnotes

Civil Procedure — Reopening of Case — Discretion of Trial Court — Test for Admitting New Evidence
A trial court has discretion to reopen a trial after judgment has been pronounced but before an order is entered, to be used sparingly to avoid fraud and abuse of court process, with the fundamental consideration being to prevent a miscarriage of justice.
Civil Procedure — Reopening of Case — Requirements — Relevance and Probable Effect on Result
To reopen a trial and introduce new evidence, the moving party must show that the evidence, if presented at trial, would probably have changed the result, and prove that such evidence could not have been obtained by reasonable diligence before the trial.
Civil Procedure — Reopening of Case — Factors for Consideration — Prejudice to Other Party
In considering whether to reopen a case, the court should consider the relevance of the proposed evidence, the effect of reopening on the orderly and expeditious conduct of the trial, and most fundamentally, whether the other party will be prejudiced if the reopening is permitted.
Evidence — Digital Evidence — Authentication and Admissibility — Concerns About Doctoring
Concerns regarding the authenticity and possible doctoring of digital evidence retrieved from a restored device can be addressed during the hearing by the laws and rules that guide authentication and admissibility of digital evidence.

Cases cited (6)

  • Honorable Justice Anup Choudry Singh v UMEME (Miscellaneous Application No. 1191 of 2023)
  • Ontario Ltd v Sagaz Industries Canada Inc 2001 SCC 59, 2 SCR 983 (SCC)
  • Peter v Cressy Whistler Townhomes Limited Partnership, 2011 BCSC 773, [2011] BCJ No. 1085
  • Vander Ende v Vander Ende, 2010 BCSC 597, [2010] BCJ No. 804 (SC)
  • R v Hayward (1993), 86 C.C.C 3d 193 (Ont C.A)
  • Dian GF International Ltd v Damco Logistics Ltd and Another (Civil Suit No. 161 of 2010)

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Monkey Adventures LLC and Others v Mweteise Godwin and Others 2026 UGCommC 234 (23 March 2026)
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.