Wakilii

Prime Roses Limited v Byarugaba (Miscellaneous Application 114 of 2024)

High Court · [2024] UGCOMMC 65 · 2024 Application Granted AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Interlocutory application arising from civil suit for recovery of money, seeking leave to introduce additional evidence at re-examination
Decision
Application granted; applicant permitted to introduce money lending licences at re-examination

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

Held that where an applicant listed money lender's licences in the summary of evidence and the respondent admitted the applicant was a licensed money lender in the written statement of defence, leave may be granted to produce the licences at re-examination despite failure to attach them to the plaint. The failure to attach licences does not render the suit a nullity where the foundational documents establishing the claim were properly attached. Leave granted in the interest of justice where no prejudice to the respondent.

Outcome

Application granted; applicant permitted to introduce money lending licences at re-examination

Facts

The applicant instituted Civil Suit No. 392 of 2020 for recovery of UGX 85,560,000 arising from a loan granted to the respondent on 26 October 2016. The applicant described itself as a licensed money lender in the plaint and listed money lender's licences in the summary of evidence but did not attach the licences to the plaint. During cross-examination of PW1, counsel for the respondent raised questions concerning the applicant's money lending licences. Counsel for the applicant sought time to bring the licences, but the respondent objected that the licences were barred by Order 7 Rule 14(1) of the Civil Procedure Rules for not being attached to the plaint. The applicant filed this application seeking leave to produce and exhibit the licences in re-examination.

Issues

  1. Whether the application discloses circumstances under which Court may admit additional documents at re-examination of a witness.

Orders

  • Leave is granted to the Applicant to produce and exhibit money lending licences for the years 2013-2023 in re-examination.
  • Costs of this application shall be in the cause.

Rules and key headnotes

Civil Procedure — Documentary Evidence — Production of Documents — Leave to Introduce Documents Not Attached to Plaint
Where a party lists documents in the summary of evidence but fails to attach them to the plaint, the court may grant leave under Order 7 Rule 18(1) of the Civil Procedure Rules to introduce those documents at trial in the interest of justice, particularly where the opposing party has admitted the fact to which the documents relate and will not be prejudiced.
Evidence — Documentary Evidence — Foundational Documents — Money Lending Licences
In a claim for recovery of money lent pursuant to a loan agreement, the mandatory foundational documents are those that establish the relationship between the parties and the basis of the claim, such as the loan application, loan agreement and demand notices. Money lending licences, while relevant, are not foundational documents whose absence renders the suit a nullity where the core documents establishing the debt are properly pleaded and attached.
Civil Procedure — Pleadings — Admissions — Effect on Proof Requirements
Where a respondent admits in the written statement of defence that the applicant is a licensed money lender, the respondent cannot later claim prejudice from the introduction of the money lending licences at re-examination, having already made the admission.

Legislation cited (5)

Cases cited (1)

  • UNICOF Ltd v Interfreight Forwarders (High Court Civil Suit No. 912 of 1996)

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Prime Roses Limited v Byarugaba (Miscellaneous Application 114 of 2024) [2024] UGCommC 65 (15 February 2024)
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.