Wakilii

Sabiiti v Attorney General (Civil Suit 761 of 1988)

High Court · [1992] UGHC 31 · 1992 Application Dismissed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Interlocutory ruling during trial on the admissibility of defence evidence
Decision
Interlocutory ruling restricting scope of defence evidence to matters actually pleaded

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

A general denial in a written statement of defence is insufficient to permit the defendant to adduce evidence raising new issues or investigating matters not pleaded. Where the defendant makes a general denial, evidence may be led only to prove that denial, not to establish affirmative defences or introduce matters not contained in the pleadings. The court disallowed evidence from the defence witness regarding handwriting expert investigations, as this constituted a departure from the pleaded case.

Outcome

Interlocutory ruling restricting scope of defence evidence to matters actually pleaded

Facts

The plaintiff sued the Attorney General for wrongful detention of his motor vehicle (Reg. No. UVS 117) by Uganda Police at Kabalagala police post on or about 2 September 1986. The defendant filed a written statement of defence containing a general denial. During trial, after the plaintiff closed his case, the defence called D/SSP Kibuuka to give evidence about investigations involving not only the plaintiff's vehicle but also another vehicle (UWP 440), including testimony about handwriting expert involvement. The court observed that this evidence departed from the pleadings, which contained only general denials without particulars.

Issues

  1. Whether defence counsel may adduce evidence departing from a general denial pleaded in the written statement of defence without seeking amendment.

Orders

  • Defence counsel not permitted to adduce evidence departing from the written statement of defence.
  • No order as to costs in respect of this ruling.

Rules and key headnotes

Pleadings — Defective pleadings — General denial — Effect
A general denial in a written statement of defence is defective pleading and does not entitle the defendant to adduce evidence raising new issues or matters not specifically pleaded; evidence must be confined to proving the denial.
Pleadings — Amendment — Departure from pleadings
Where a defendant seeks to adduce evidence on matters not covered by the pleadings, the defendant must first seek amendment of the written statement of defence; the court will not permit evidence that constitutes a departure from the pleaded case.
Admissibility — Conformity with pleadings
Evidence must conform to the pleadings; a party cannot adduce evidence that departs from or contradicts the case as pleaded without first amending the pleadings.

Legislation cited (2)

  • Civil Procedure Rules O.6 r.7
  • Civil Procedure Rules O.6 r.9

Cases cited (5)

  • George Brown Turyamureeba v Attorney General (HCCS No. 436 of 1989)
  • N.R. Behangana v Attorney General (HCCS No. 314 of 1987)
  • Yusuf Aimohamed Osman v Dobie & Co. [1943] EA 288
  • Sabayaga Farmers Coop. v Mwita [1949] EA 38
  • Hoshi v Uganda Sugar Factory [1968] EA 570

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Sabiiti v Attorney General (Civil Suit 761 of 1988) [1992] UGHC 31 (10 April 1992)
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.