Wakilii

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

High Court · [1994] UGHC 25 · 1994 Application Dismissed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Application for leave to adduce further evidence after close of case
Decision
Application for leave to adduce further evidence refused

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 held that the plaintiff could not be granted leave to call a new witness after both parties had closed their cases. The plaintiff had ample opportunity to call all necessary evidence during its case. Allowing further evidence at this stage would amount to opening new issues. The application was dismissed with costs to the defendant.

Outcome

Application for leave to adduce further evidence refused

Facts

The plaintiff sued the defendant in a civil matter. After both parties had adduced evidence and closed their cases, plaintiff's counsel made a verbal application for leave to adduce further evidence. Counsel argued that certain facts did not come out clearly in the plaintiff's evidence, specifically regarding whether Mr. Dragon was in Uganda when an order for supplying commodities was made. Counsel sought to call witnesses to prove when Mr. Dragon arrived in Uganda and to produce original documents regarding his visa and work permit. The defendant objected, arguing that the plaintiff had adequate opportunity to call such witnesses during its case and that the application was a delaying tactic.

Issues

  1. Whether the plaintiff should be granted leave to adduce further evidence after both parties had closed their cases.

Orders

  • Preliminary objection by the defendant upheld.
  • Application for leave to adduce further evidence dismissed.
  • Costs awarded to the defendant.

Rules and key headnotes

Civil Procedure — Order of Evidence — Leave to Adduce Further Evidence After Close of Case
A party may not be granted leave to call a new witness after both parties have closed their cases where that party had the opportunity to call all necessary evidence in support of its case and where allowing such evidence would amount to opening new issues.
Evidence — Order of Production of Witnesses — Statutory Framework
The order of production of witnesses is regulated by section 133 of the Evidence Act Cap 43, and sections 135 and 136 lay down the procedure for examination in chief, cross-examination, and re-examination.
Civil Procedure — Court's Power to Call Witnesses — Scope and Limits
The court has power under Order 16 rule 12 of the Civil Procedure Rules to call any witness who has already testified and put questions to that witness at any stage of the suit, but this power does not extend to calling new witnesses who have not been called by either party, unless neither party objects.

Legislation cited (4)

Cases cited (3)

  • Enoh and Zaketaky Bock and Co's Arbitration [1910] 1 KB 327
  • R v Dora Harris (1927)
  • R v Machnon (1933) 24 Cr App R 95

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 25 (21 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.