Wakilii

Robert Bugembe v Lint Marketing Board [1988] UGSC 2

Supreme Court · 1988 Application Granted AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Application for leave to adduce additional evidence in a pending civil appeal to the Supreme Court.
Decision
Application granted; additional evidence of Yona Kanyomozi ordered to be taken by the trial court under Rule 29(3).

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 applicant sought leave to adduce the additional evidence of Yona Kanyomozi, who was resident in Nairobi and could not be traced when the suit was heard in the High Court. Applying the conditions in Ladd v Marshall and Karmali Tarmohamed, the Court held that the evidence could not have been obtained with reasonable diligence for use at trial, would probably have an important influence on the result though need not be decisive, and was apparently credible. Diligence was shown by the search begun in 1986 and the witness appearing only after trial. The application was granted and the additional evidence was ordered to be taken by the trial court under Rule 29(3), with costs to the applicant.

Outcome

Application granted; additional evidence of Yona Kanyomozi ordered to be taken by the trial court under Rule 29(3).

Facts

Yona Kanyomozi assisted a party to raise a loan in 1982 to purchase a lorry from the Coffee Marketing Board. After the lorry was involved in an accident in Kenya, he again provided funds for its repair. The total amount owed was said to be Shs 10,075,414. It was agreed the sum would be raised by selling the lorry, which was sold to Edible Oil and Soap Industries for Shs 12,000,000, of which Shs 7,200,000 was paid to Kanyomozi, leaving the balance unpaid. Kanyomozi was living in Nairobi at the time the suit was heard in the High Court and could not be traced; the search for him began in November 1986, and he appeared in counsel's chambers only in 1987, after the trial had run from 30 March to 9 June 1987. The applicant sought to adduce his evidence on the matters of payment.

Issues

  1. Whether the applicant satisfied the conditions for the admission of additional evidence on appeal under Rule 29(3) of the Court's Rules.

Orders

  • Application for leave to adduce additional evidence granted.
  • Additional evidence of Yona Kanyomozi to be taken by the trial court in accordance with Rule 29(3) of the Court's Rules.
  • Costs of the application to the applicant.

Rules and key headnotes

Civil Procedure — Appeals — Admission of Additional Evidence — Ladd v Marshall Conditions
Additional evidence may be admitted on appeal only where three conditions are met: the evidence could not have been obtained with reasonable diligence for use at trial; it would probably have an important influence on the result of the case, though it need not be decisive; and it is apparently credible, though it need not be incontrovertible.
Civil Procedure — Additional Evidence — Reasonable Diligence — Untraceable Witness
The requirement of reasonable diligence is satisfied where a party began searching for an unavailable witness before trial and the witness, then resident abroad, could not be traced until after the trial had concluded.
Evidence — Fresh Evidence on Appeal — Materiality and Credibility
Fresh evidence directed at a material issue such as payment, which is apparently credible and likely to have an important influence on the result, may justify its reception on appeal.

Legislation cited (1)

  • Rules of the Supreme Court r.29(3)

Cases cited (3)

  • Karmali Tarmohamed and Another v I.H. Lakhani & Co (1958) EA 567
  • Ladd v Marshall [1954] 1 WLR 1489
  • Corbett v Corbett (1953) 2 All ER 72

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Robert Bugembe v Lint Marketing Board [1988] UGSC 2 (5 August 1988)
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.