Wakilii

Nanyonjo v Kato (Miscellaneous Application 542 of 2022)

High Court · [2023] UGHCLD 209 · 2023 Application Dismissed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Application for leave to adduce additional evidence on appeal arising from a civil appeal challenging a trial magistrate's decision in a land dispute
Decision
Application for leave to adduce additional evidence 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 court dismissed the application for leave to adduce additional evidence on appeal. The applicant sought to introduce forensic reports and audio recordings that post-dated the trial judgment, claiming they were unavailable during the hearing. The court held that the evidence could have been obtained with reasonable diligence during the two-year trial period, that allowing it would constitute an afterthought undermining finality of judgments, and that the applicant's contradictory pleadings tainted the application with falsehood.

Outcome

Application for leave to adduce additional evidence dismissed with costs to the respondent

Facts

The applicant filed an appeal against a trial magistrate's decision in a civil suit concerning land comprised in Kyaggwe Block 222, Plot 1074. The trial court had ruled against her on the ground that there was no evidence of consideration for the purported land purchase. After the trial court judgment was delivered on 10 February 2022, the applicant obtained forensic reports on 18 May 2022 and 28 June 2022 from the Directorate of Forensic Services examining fingerprints on a sales agreement and audio recordings. She sought leave to adduce these as additional evidence on appeal. The respondent opposed, arguing that the evidence could have been obtained during the two-year trial period with reasonable diligence, that the audio evidence had been rejected at trial for non-service, and that the criminal case against the respondent had been dismissed for want of prosecution due to the applicant's failure to appear.

Issues

  1. Whether the Applicant is entitled to be granted leave to adduce additional evidence on appeal.

Orders

  • Application dismissed.
  • Costs awarded to the respondent.

Rules and key headnotes

Additional Evidence on Appeal — Test for Admission
An appellate court may exercise its discretion to admit additional evidence only in exceptional circumstances, including where new and important evidence not within the party's knowledge or obtainable with due diligence at trial is discovered, the evidence is relevant and credible, it would probably influence the result, and the application is brought without undue delay.
Additional Evidence on Appeal — Due Diligence Requirement
Where evidence was either in the possession of a party at the time of trial or could have been obtained by proper diligence but was not produced, leading to an adverse decision, no opportunity for adducing such evidence ought to be given on appeal, as allowing it would undermine the justice system and the obligation to adduce all material evidence at trial.
Finality of Litigation — Protection of Successful Party
In the interest of society as a whole, litigation must come to an end, and when a litigant has obtained judgment in a court of justice, he is by law entitled not to be deprived of that judgment without very solid grounds.
Fresh Evidence — Afterthought Evidence
Evidence obtained after the conclusion of trial by deliberately creating it for purposes of appeal (such as obtaining sample fingerprints on a plain sheet of paper dated after judgment) constitutes an afterthought and should not be admitted, as it would deprive the successful party of the fruit of their judgment and set a bad precedent in the justice system.
Additional Evidence on Appeal — Contradictory Pleadings
Where an applicant's memorandum of appeal states that the trial court objected to tendering electronic evidence, but the supporting affidavit and submissions claim the evidence was not available during trial, such contradictory pleadings taint the application with falsehood and provide grounds for dismissal.

Legislation cited (10)

Cases cited (8)

  • Hon. Bangirana Kawoya v National Council of Higher Education (Miscellaneous Application No. 8 of 2013)
  • Makubuya Enock William T/a Polly Post v Bulaim Muwanga Kibirige T/a Kowloon Garment Industry (Civil Application No. 133 of 2014)
  • Kakonge Umar v Uganda (Criminal Appeal No. 0099 of 2018)
  • Aluma Michael Bayo and Others v Said Nasur Okuti (Miscellaneous Civil Application No. 0012 of 2016)
  • Ladd v Marshall [1954] 1 WLR 1489
  • Karmali Tarmohamed and Another v I.H. Lakhani and Company [1958] EA 567
  • Brown v Dean [1910] AC 373
  • Hon. Anifa Bangirana Kawooya v National Council for Higher Education (Miscellaneous Application No. 8 of 2013)

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Nanyonjo_v_Kato_(Miscellaneous_Application_542_of_2022)_[2023]_UGHCLD_209_(18_July_2023)
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.