Wakilii

Nankunda Stella v Kaluusi Micheal and Another (Miscellaneous Application 19 of 2025)

High Court · [2025] UGHC 951 · 2025 Application Dismissed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Application for leave to adduce additional evidence in a pending civil appeal
Decision
Application for leave to adduce additional evidence dismissed

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 for leave to adduce additional evidence on appeal where the applicant's affidavit in reply had been expunged at trial for non-compliance with the Oaths Act. The court held that the police report sought to be introduced was fresh evidence, not additional evidence, as it did not form part of the trial record and was created after the trial court's ruling. The court found that Order 43 Rule 22 of the Civil Procedure Rules contemplates adding to existing evidence on record, not introducing entirely new evidence where none existed at trial.

Outcome

Application for leave to adduce additional evidence dismissed

Facts

The applicant brought an application seeking leave to file additional evidence in Civil Appeal No. 42 of 2024. The appeal arose from Miscellaneous Cause No. 17 of 2024 in which the trial court had expunged the applicant's affidavit in reply on 11 April 2024 for non-compliance with the Oaths Act. The trial court delivered its ruling on 15 May 2024 based only on the respondents' evidence, the matter having proceeded unopposed. The applicant sought to introduce a police report dated 6 June 2024 as additional evidence on appeal, contending it was not in her possession at the time of the trial court's ruling and was relevant to her case. The respondents opposed the application, arguing the police report was an afterthought manufactured to patch up holes in the applicant's case, that the application was a disguised appeal against the trial court's decision to expunge her affidavit, and that no exceptional circumstances warranted admission of additional evidence.

Issues

  1. Whether this application raises grounds to warrant the grant of leave to adduce additional evidence in Civil Appeal No. 42 of 2025?
  2. What remedies are available to the parties?

Orders

  • Application dismissed.
  • Costs awarded to the Respondents.

Rules and key headnotes

Civil Procedure — Additional Evidence on Appeal — Distinction Between Additional Evidence and Fresh Evidence
Order 43 Rule 22 of the Civil Procedure Rules permits the production of additional evidence on appeal only where there is existing evidence on record to which the new evidence can be added; where a party's evidence was expunged at trial and no evidence remains on record, a document sought to be introduced on appeal constitutes fresh or new evidence, not additional evidence, and cannot be admitted under Order 43 Rule 22.
Civil Procedure — Additional Evidence on Appeal — Requirements for Admission
Admission of additional evidence on appeal is at the discretion of the court and requires proof of exceptional circumstances; the party seeking admission must demonstrate that the evidence was discovered after due diligence and could not have been produced at trial, that it is relevant and credible, and that it would probably influence the result of the case.
Civil Procedure — Additional Evidence on Appeal — Evidence Created After Trial
Evidence that came into existence after the trial court had become functus officio and delivered its final ruling cannot be admitted as additional evidence on appeal, as it never formed part of the trial record and was non-existent during the hearing and determination of the case in the lower court.
Civil Procedure — Appeals — Disguised Appeals
An application to adduce additional evidence on appeal that seeks to challenge the trial court's decision to expunge evidence for non-compliance with procedural requirements constitutes a disguised appeal against that interlocutory decision; issues concerning the propriety of the trial court's decision to strike out evidence are matters to be determined on appeal, not in an application for leave to adduce additional evidence.
Evidence — Burden of Proof — Failure to Discharge Burden at Trial
A party who fails to discharge the burden of proof at trial cannot be permitted to perfect their case at the appellate stage under the pretext of adducing additional evidence; litigation is not a matter of trial and error and must come to an end.

Legislation cited (7)

Cases cited (6)

  • Michael Mabikke v Law Development Center (Supreme Court Miscellaneous Application No. 16 of 2015)
  • Attorney General v Paul Kawanga Semwogerere (Supreme Court Constitutional Application No. 2 of 2004)
  • Rosemary Nalwadda v Uganda Aids Commission (High Court Miscellaneous Cause No. 45 of 2010)
  • Alice Kisoke and Another v Katalihwa Ruhunga (High Court Miscellaneous Application No. 118 of 2022)
  • Narok Transit Hotel and another Vs. Barclays Bank of Kenya Limited, High Court of Kenya, Civil Case No. 12 of 2001
  • GM Combined UG Ltd v AK Detergents Ltd and Four Others (Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 7 of 1998)

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Nankunda Stella v Kaluusi Micheal and Another (Miscellaneous Application 19 of 2025) [2025] UGHC 951 (2 July 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.