Wakilii

Olanya & Another v Ladur & Another (Miscellaneous Application 134 of 2024)

High Court · [2025] UGHC 128 · 2025 Application Dismissed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Application to adduce additional evidence on appeal from Chief Magistrate's Court judgment
Decision
Application dismissed with costs to the respondents

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

Application dismissed. The High Court held that additional evidence in the form of a certificate of title obtained after the suit commenced cannot be admitted on appeal where the applicants deliberately concealed its existence at trial, where it was not refused admission by the lower court, and where it introduces a new cause of action unrelated to the dispute over unregistered customary land that was before the trial court.

Outcome

Application dismissed with costs to the respondents

Facts

The respondents sued the applicants in 2020 for trespass on unregistered customary land, claiming it was gifted to their ancestor Andrea Mwodo in 1889. The Chief Magistrate's Court found for the respondents in March 2023, declaring them owners and issuing an eviction order. The applicants appealed. Before the appeal could be heard, the applicants applied to adduce additional evidence — a freehold certificate of title obtained in November 2021 over the suit land. The applicants claimed they had applied for conversion of the land from customary to freehold in December 2019, but this certificate was never placed before the trial court. The respondents opposed, arguing the applicants deliberately concealed the registration process during trial.

Issues

  1. Whether the applicants should be allowed to adduce additional evidence (a certificate of title) on appeal.
  2. Whether the certificate of title obtained after commencement of the suit meets the conditions for admission of additional evidence under Order 43 rule 22(1) of the Civil Procedure Rules.

Orders

  • Application dismissed.
  • Costs awarded to the respondents.

Rules and key headnotes

Civil Procedure — Additional Evidence on Appeal — Conditions for Admission under Order 43 rule 22(1)
An appellate court may admit additional evidence only in exceptional circumstances where the evidence could not have been obtained with reasonable diligence at trial, is relevant and credible, and would probably have an important influence on the result, provided the application is brought without undue delay.
Civil Procedure — Additional Evidence on Appeal — Deliberate Concealment by Party
Where a party was aware of the existence of evidence during trial but deliberately chose not to plead it or disclose it to the court, that party cannot rely on their own concealment as grounds to adduce the evidence on appeal.
Civil Procedure — Additional Evidence on Appeal — Evidence Introducing New Cause of Action
Additional evidence that introduces a completely different cause of action not before the trial court cannot be admitted on appeal and must be the subject of a separate suit.
Land & Property — Registered versus Unregistered Land — Effect of Subsequent Registration on Pending Suit
The obtaining of a certificate of title over land after commencement of a suit concerning unregistered customary land does not divest the trial court of jurisdiction over the original dispute, nor does a judgment concerning the unregistered land directly or indirectly cancel the certificate of title.

Legislation cited (6)

Cases cited (5)

  • Karmali Tarmohamed and Another v I.H. Lakhani and Co. [1958] EA 567
  • Ladd v Marshall [1954] 1 WLR 1489
  • Michael Mabikke v Law Development Centre (Supreme Court Miscellaneous Application No. 16 of 2015)
  • Nanyonjo Aisha v Kato Edward Ssalongo (HCMA No. 542 of 2022)
  • Aluma Michael Bayo and Others v Said Nasur Okuti (High Court Miscellaneous Application No. 0012 of 2016)

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Olanya & Another v Ladur & Another (Miscellaneous Application 134 of 2024) [2025] UGHC 128 (20 February 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.