Wakilii

Ssenyondo v Tesco Industries Limited [2025] UGCOMMC 46

High Court · 2025 Application Dismissed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Interlocutory application for discovery of bank statements and tax returns arising from a civil suit for breach of tenancy agreement, fraud, duress and undue influence
Decision
Application for discovery dismissed

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

Court dismissed application for discovery of bank statements and rental tax returns. Held that the requested bank statements would amount to general inspection exposing confidential transactions of other tenants, violating their privacy rights under Article 27(2) of the Constitution. Tax returns were not material to the claims of breach of tenancy contract, fraud and duress, and seeking them constituted a fishing expedition into tax affairs not the subject of the suit.

Outcome

Application for discovery dismissed

Facts

The applicant brought this application seeking discovery of bank statements from three accounts for 2020 to early 2023, and URA rental tax returns for 2020-2023, arising from Civil Suit No. 205 of 2023. In the main suit, the applicant sued the respondent for breach of tenancy agreement, undue influence, duress and fraud, seeking to set aside agreements executed in May and November 2022 and recover UGX 1,492,888,000. The applicant claimed he had paid rent duly throughout the tenancy period, either in cash or by bank deposit. The respondent contended that investigations during COVID revealed money deposited did not match records, leading to the disputed agreements. The applicant sought the bank statements to verify payments and tax returns to confirm which buildings were under the respondent's management.

Issues

  1. Whether the Court should grant an order for discovery of the documents (bank statements and tax returns)?
  2. What remedies are available to the parties?

Orders

  • Application dismissed.
  • Costs of the application to be in the cause.

Rules and key headnotes

Civil Procedure — Discovery — Prerequisites for Grant of Order — Relevancy, Materiality, Possession, and Prior Attempts
The prerequisites for grant of an order for discovery are: (1) relevancy and materiality of the documents to the issues in dispute; (2) the documents are not otherwise privileged or protected by law; (3) the documents are in the respondent's possession, custody, control or power; and (4) attempts to obtain the same voluntarily were futile.
Civil Procedure — Discovery — General Inspection Prohibited — Specificity Required
An application for discovery must be specific, establish materiality and must recite precisely what is needed. It does not permit general inspection of the adversary's records. A general order for production of all deposits on an account over a multi-year period without specifying dates or amounts in dispute amounts to impermissible general inspection.
Civil Procedure — Discovery — Protection of Privacy — Third Party Confidentiality
Where bank statements contain transactions of other parties not involved in the litigation, a court will refuse discovery to protect the constitutional right to privacy under Article 27(2) of the Constitution. The danger of exposing confidential transactions of third parties (such as other tenants using the same bank accounts) outweighs the applicant's need for discovery where the applicant already possesses deposit slips and other evidence of payments.
Civil Procedure — Discovery — Fishing Expedition — Documents for Comparative Purposes
A court will deny discovery if it is used as a fishing expedition. Where an applicant seeks documents for comparative purposes and the documents sought (such as tax returns) relate to matters not directly in issue in the suit but rather to the respondent's tax affairs, the application constitutes a fishing expedition and will be refused.
Civil Procedure — Discovery — Alternative Means of Obtaining Information
Where information sought through discovery can be ascertained from other ordinary channels available under statute or from existing documents such as tenancy agreements, discovery is not necessary and will be refused.

Legislation cited (4)

Cases cited (8)

  • Simbamanyo Estates Ltd and Another v Equity Bank Uganda Limited and Others (HCMA No. 583 of 2022)
  • Munyangabe Emmanuel v Equity Bank and Another (HCMA No. 2042 of 2023)
  • Rutebe Farmers' Cooperative Society Limited v Muhanguzi George and 22 Others (Civil Suit No. 54 of 2012)
  • Tirupati Development (U) Limited v KCB Bank (U) Limited and Another (HCMA No. 707 of 2022)
  • Thyssen Tunneback Singapore PTA LTV Vs TIJ Civil Engineering PTE LTD [2003] ISLR (R) 25
  • John Kato v Muhlbauer AG and Another (HCMA No. 175 of 2011)
  • Patricia Mutesi v Attorney General (HCMA No. 912 of 2016)
  • Kabaka of Buganda v Male H Mabirizi Kiwanuka (CACA No. 184 of 2017)

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Ssenyondo v Tesco Industries Limited 2025 UGCommC 46 (7 February 2025)
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.