Wakilii

Secondina Twijukye and Others v Tebawetu Fabian (MISC. APPLICATION NO. 060 OF 2024)

High Court · [2026] UGHC 379 · 2026 Application Granted AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Application for leave to adduce additional evidence on appeal from Chief Magistrate's Court judgment
Decision
Application granted and matter remitted to Chief Magistrate's Court to take additional evidence before appeal determination

Observed later treatment

Cited — treatment unverified cited in 1 (treatment unverified) Sequitur — Uganda’s citator · Derived from citing cases in the Wakilii corpus — not an assertion that this case is good law.

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.

No adverse treatment recorded Cited 1 time with no adverse treatment recorded; not yet tested on the merits. Derived from citing cases in the Wakilii corpus — a deterministic signal, not legal advice.

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 High Court granted leave to adduce additional evidence on appeal where applicants alleged judgment was procured through forged documents. The court held that credible allegations of fraud constitute substantial cause under Order 43 Rule 22(1)(b) of the Civil Procedure Rules to admit additional evidence. The court ordered that the additional evidence be taken by the lower court, with parties having the right to cross-examine and challenge authenticity, before transmitting the record back for determination of the appeal.

Outcome

Application granted and matter remitted to Chief Magistrate's Court to take additional evidence before appeal determination

Facts

Applicants were defendants in Civil Suit No. 329 of 2012 before the Chief Magistrates' Court of Kabale, in which the respondent obtained judgment against them. The applicants appealed (Civil Appeal No. 34 of 2020). After the appeal was filed, the applicants instituted criminal proceedings against the respondent (CRB No. 302 of 2022) alleging forgery of documents. A police forensic report allegedly revealed that documents relied on at the original trial, including sales agreements, were forged. The applicants sought leave to adduce this forensic evidence on appeal. The respondent objected on grounds that the appeal was at delivery of judgment stage, that the deponent was not a party, and that no documents had been refused admission at trial.

Issues

  1. Whether the application for leave to adduce additional evidence on appeal should be granted
  2. Whether an affidavit in reply containing references to statutory law is argumentative in nature and inadmissible
  3. Whether a non-party may depone to an affidavit in court proceedings

Orders

  • Application for leave to adduce additional evidence granted under Order 43 Rule 22 of the Civil Procedure Rules.
  • Additional evidence shall be taken by the Chief Magistrate's Court of Kabale in accordance with Section 80(1)(d) of the Civil Procedure Act.
  • Lower court shall take the additional evidence and transmit the record to the High Court for determination of the appeal.
  • Parties shall be at liberty to cross-examine witnesses and challenge the authenticity and probative value of the evidence.
  • Costs of this application shall abide the outcome of the appeal.

Rules and key headnotes

Civil Procedure — Additional Evidence on Appeal — Substantial Cause
Under Order 43 Rule 22(1)(b) of the Civil Procedure Rules, the High Court may admit additional evidence on appeal where there exists substantial cause, and credible allegations that judgment was procured through fraud constitute substantial cause going to the integrity of the judicial process.
Civil Procedure — Additional Evidence on Appeal — Criteria for Admission
The criteria for allowing applications to adduce additional evidence on appeal are: (i) discovery of new and important evidence which after due diligence could not have been produced at trial; (ii) evidence must be relevant; (iii) evidence must be capable of belief; (iv) evidence must probably influence the result though need not be decisive; (v) proper affidavit support; and (vi) application brought without undue delay.
Evidence — Affidavits — References to Statutory Law
Order 19 Rule 3 of the Civil Procedure Rules does not expressly bar references in an affidavit to statutory law, and where an advocate has explained the contents of an application to a deponent and the source of information is stated, such references are not impermissibly argumentative.
Evidence — Affidavits — Non-Party Deponents
Order 52 Rule 3 of the Civil Procedure Rules does not bar non-parties from deponing to affidavits in support of a notice of motion; affidavits are not strictly required for all notices of motion but are good practice for elaboration of the grounds.
Civil Procedure — Additional Evidence on Appeal — Remittal to Lower Court
Where additional evidence sought to be admitted on appeal is contested and requires cross-examination, the interests of justice are best served by ordering the lower court to take the evidence rather than converting the appeal into a trial, with parties retaining the right to challenge authenticity and probative value.
Administrative Law — Appellate Jurisdiction — Source and Scope
The appellate jurisdiction of the High Court is derived from Article 139 of the Constitution and is exercised subject to conditions and limitations prescribed by the Civil Procedure Act and Civil Procedure Rules; this appellate power is not a creation of case law but is statutorily conferred.

Legislation cited (10)

Cases cited (2)

Cases citing this judgment (1)

How later Ugandan judgments in the Wakilii corpus have cited this case. Treatment labels come from Sequitur — Uganda’s citator — each backed by a verbatim span from the citing judgment, and are not an assertion that this case is, or is not, good law.

  • [2026] UGHC 578

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Secondina Twijukye and Others v Tebawetu Fabian (MISC. APPLICATION NO. 060 OF 2024) [2026] UGHC 379 (20 April 2026)
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.