Wakilii

Odongo Peter Alias Egola and Another v Esanyu Wilson (Miscellaneous Application No. 115 of 2024)

High Court · [2026] UGHC 220 · 2026 Application Dismissed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Application for leave to amend memorandum of appeal and adduce additional evidence, arising from Civil Appeal No. 36 of 2022
Decision
Application dismissed with costs; underlying appeal to proceed to hearing on merits

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 amend a memorandum of appeal and adduce additional evidence. The applicants sought to introduce an LCII court judgment which they claimed the trial magistrate failed to guide them on how to exhibit. The court held that the trial court did not wrongly refuse to admit the document, as there was no basis for its admission and no proof of authenticity. The alleged judgment was in the applicants' possession from the time of filing their defence and could not be considered new evidence. No justifiable grounds for production of additional evidence or amendment of the memorandum of appeal were established.

Outcome

Application dismissed with costs; underlying appeal to proceed to hearing on merits

Facts

The applicants were defendants in a land suit at Kaberamaido Chief Magistrates Court which was decreed in favour of the respondent. They appealed and subsequently filed this application seeking leave to amend their memorandum of appeal and adduce additional evidence. The additional evidence sought was a copy of an LCII court judgment allegedly delivered in 2013 concerning the same land. The applicants claimed they had attempted to introduce this document during trial but the trial magistrate failed to guide them on proper procedure for exhibiting it. The document was partly in English and partly in Kumam language. When the matter was adjourned for translation, the second applicant later stated he could not speak to the document as only the first applicant could identify it. The document was never admitted into evidence. The respondent opposed the application, arguing the LCII court lacked jurisdiction in 2013, the judgment's authenticity was questionable, and the applicants had possessed the document since filing their defence.

Issues

  1. Whether the applicants have established justifiable grounds for grant of leave to amend the memorandum of appeal in Civil Appeal No. 36 of 2022.
  2. Whether the applicants have established justifiable grounds for grant of leave to adduce additional evidence on appeal.
  3. Whether the applicants are entitled to the remedies claimed.

Orders

  • Application dismissed.
  • Costs awarded to the respondent.
  • Appeal to be fixed for hearing and determination on its merits.

Rules and key headnotes

Civil Procedure — Additional Evidence on Appeal — Conditions for Admission
An appellate court may exercise its discretion to admit additional evidence only in exceptional circumstances, including where the evidence was not within the knowledge of or could not have been produced at trial after due diligence, is relevant and credible, would probably influence the result, and the application is brought without undue delay.
Civil Procedure — Additional Evidence on Appeal — Document in Possession of Party
Where a document sought to be adduced as additional evidence on appeal was in the possession of the applicant at the time of filing the defence and during trial, it cannot be considered new evidence and does not meet the threshold for admission as additional evidence on appeal.
Evidence — Documentary Evidence — Failure to Tender at Trial
Where a party attempts to introduce a document at trial but fails to produce it in admissible form (including proper translation and authentication), and no issue of res judicata was raised before the trial court, there is no basis to conclude that the trial court wrongly refused to admit evidence which ought to have been admitted.
Civil Procedure — Amendment of Memorandum of Appeal — Dependence on Additional Evidence
Where a prayer for amendment of a memorandum of appeal is hinged on the production of additional evidence, and no justifiable grounds for production of additional evidence are established, no justification for amendment of the memorandum of appeal is established.

Legislation cited (4)

Cases cited (5)

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Odongo Peter Alias Egola and Another v Esanyu Wilson (Miscellaneous Application No. 115 of 2024) [2026] UGHC 220 (17 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.