Wakilii

Nangunga Livestock Co-operative Society Ltd v M/s Energo Project Corporation (Civil Suit No.201 of 1993)

High Court · [1994] UGHC 26 · 1994 Preliminary Objection Upheld AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Interlocutory ruling on objection to admissibility of expert evidence during trial
Decision
Defendant's expert witness precluded from testifying on forgery; matter to proceed on existing pleadings

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 ruled that a party may not lead evidence on an allegation of forgery when that allegation was never pleaded in the written statement of defence and the party failed to seek leave to amend the pleadings under Order 16 Rule 18. A party is bound by its pleadings and cannot depart from them by introducing new issues at trial. The defendant's attempt to introduce expert evidence on forgery constituted an impermissible departure from the original pleadings under Order 6 Rule 6. The plaintiff's objection was upheld with costs.

Outcome

Defendant's expert witness precluded from testifying on forgery; matter to proceed on existing pleadings

Facts

The plaintiff sued the defendant for payment of 7,000,000 shillings for goods supplied under contract. During trial, after the plaintiff closed its case, the defendant sought to adduce expert evidence from a government analyst (DW2) concerning a document already admitted as Exhibit P1. The document was a letter authorising the plaintiff to supply commodities to the defendant's camp. In an earlier ruling dated 23 August 1993, the court had overruled the defendant's objection to the admissibility of this document. The defendant now sought to introduce expert testimony suggesting the document was forged. The plaintiff objected on the ground that forgery had never been pleaded in the written statement of defence and the defendant had not sought to amend the pleadings.

Issues

  1. Whether a defendant may adduce expert evidence on an allegation of forgery when that allegation was not pleaded in the written statement of defence and the document in question had already been admitted as an exhibit.

Orders

  • The plaintiff's preliminary objection to the admissibility of the expert evidence on forgery is upheld.
  • Costs awarded to the plaintiff.

Rules and key headnotes

Civil Procedure — Pleadings — Amendment — Failure to Plead Material Fact
A party who fails to plead a material allegation such as forgery in the written statement of defence and does not seek leave to amend the pleadings under Order 16 Rule 18 is precluded from adducing evidence on that allegation at trial.
Civil Procedure — Pleadings — Parties Bound by Pleadings — Order 6 Rule 6
A party is bound by its pleadings and may not depart from them during trial by introducing evidence on issues not raised in the pleadings. Such departure offends against Order 6 Rule 6 of the Civil Procedure Rules.
Evidence — Expert Evidence — Admissibility — Underlying Allegation Not Pleaded
Expert evidence on forgery is inadmissible where the allegation of forgery was never pleaded and the party seeking to adduce the evidence had ample opportunity to amend the pleadings but failed to do so.
Civil Procedure — Amendment of Pleadings — Principles for Granting Leave
Leave to amend pleadings should generally be granted unless the amendment would substantially change the character of the action, prejudice the rights of the opposite party (such as by depriving them of a limitation defence), or cause injustice to others.

Legislation cited (2)

Cases cited (6)

  • Releigh v Gochan (1891) 28 Ch 73
  • Weldon v Neal (1871) 9 QBD 394
  • David Kedi v Attorney General (1991) HCB 110
  • Construction Engineers Builders Ltd v Attorney General (1991) HCB 56
  • British India General Insurance Co Ltd v GM Parmar and Co [1966] EA 122
  • Hassan Wasswa and 9 Others v Uganda Rayon Textiles (1982) HCB 137

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Nangunga Livestock Co-operative Society Ltd v M_s Energo Project Corporation (Civil Suit No.201 of 1993) [1994] UGHC 26 (14 July 1994)
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.