Wakilii

Real Engineering Contractors Limited v Rubanda District Local Government (Miscellaneous Application No. 53 of 2021)

High Court · [2022] UGHCLD 42 · 2022 Application Dismissed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Application for discovery and production of documents arising from civil suit for breach of contract
Decision
Application for discovery dismissed as a fishing expedition

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 discovery and production of documents. The applicant contractor already possessed the three contracts, certificates of completion, and payment records necessary to substantiate its claim for unpaid contract sums. Ordering the respondent to produce documents already in the applicant's possession would constitute a fishing expedition and abuse of court process.

Outcome

Application for discovery dismissed as a fishing expedition

Facts

The Applicant contractor was engaged by the Respondent district local government to execute construction work and was paid part of the contractual sum. The Applicant filed Civil Suit No. 021 of 2021 claiming breach of contract and unpaid money totalling UGX 304,337,834. The Applicant alleged that its Managing Director died mysteriously on a return journey from demanding payment and that Respondent officials confiscated documents in his possession. The Applicant then filed this application seeking production of the three contracts, certificates of completion, cheque deposit slips, and evidence of payments. The Respondent contended that the Applicant already possessed these documents and that receipt of part payment was not disputed.

Issues

  1. Whether the Respondent should be ordered to produce and grant inspection of documents relating to construction contracts and payments made to the Applicant.
  2. Whether the application for discovery constitutes a fishing expedition and abuse of court process.

Orders

  • Application dismissed.
  • Costs awarded to the Respondent.

Rules and key headnotes

Discovery and Production of Documents — Preconditions for Grant of Order
An order for discovery and production of documents under Order 10 rules 12 and 14 of the Civil Procedure Rules requires that the party seeking production must have a suit in the same court with issues pending determination, and the documents sought must be relevant to the determination of the pending suit.
Discovery — Fishing Expedition — Discretion to Refuse
The grant of an order for discovery of documents is discretionary and the court will deny discovery if the applicant is using it as a fishing expedition to obtain information for the purpose of starting an action or developing a defence.
Discovery — Abuse of Process — Documents Already in Applicant's Possession
An application for the respondent to produce documents that are already in the possession of the applicant constitutes an abuse of the court process and a fishing expedition which cannot be condoned by the court.

Legislation cited (7)

Cases cited (6)

  • Gerald Kafureka Karuhanga & Another v Attorney General & Others (Miscellaneous Cause No. 60 of 2015)
  • Patricia Mutesi v Attorney General (Miscellaneous Application No. 912 of 2016)
  • Oluoch v Charagu [2003] EALR 649
  • Dresdener Bank v Sango Bay Estates & Others (Civil Suit No. 322 of 1968)
  • John Kato v Muhlbauer & Another (Miscellaneous Application No. 185 of 2011)
  • Gale v Denman Picture Houses Ltd [1930] 1 KB 588

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Real_Engineering_Contractors_Limited_v_Rubanda_District_Local_Government_(Miscellaneous_Application_No._53_of_2021)_[2022]_UGHCLD_42_(21_March_2022)
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.