Wakilii

Ssenyondo v Tesco Industries Limited [2025] UGCOMMC 20

High Court · 2025 Application Dismissed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Application for discovery and production of documents arising out of an underlying civil suit for breach of tenancy agreement
Decision
Application for discovery dismissed; main suit remains pending

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 High Court dismissed an application for discovery of bank statements and tax returns, holding that the applicant had not demonstrated sufficient materiality or specificity for the documents sought. The court found that ordering production would violate the respondent's and other tenants' privacy rights under Article 27(2) of the Constitution, and that the applicant already possessed deposit slips to prove payments. The request for tax returns was held to be a fishing expedition into the respondent's tax affairs unrelated to the breach of contract claim.

Outcome

Application for discovery dismissed; main suit remains pending

Facts

The applicant instituted a civil suit against the respondent claiming breach of a tenancy agreement, alleging he had paid all rent for over 117 shops from 2020 to early 2023. The applicant claimed payments were made in cash and by bank deposit to accounts specified by the respondent's managing director. The respondent contended that investigations revealed discrepancies between bank deposits and records, leading to agreements signed by the applicant in May and November 2022 to settle alleged arrears. The applicant then sought to set aside these agreements as procured by fraud and duress. Through the interlocutory application, the applicant sought production of bank statements for three accounts covering 2020-2023 and rental tax returns for seven buildings for 2020-2023, claiming these were necessary to prove payment and identify buildings under the respondent's management.

Issues

  1. Whether the Court should grant an order for discovery of the documents?
  2. What remedies are available to the parties?

Orders

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

Rules and key headnotes

Discovery — Prerequisites for Grant of Order
An order for discovery will only be granted where the applicant demonstrates that the documents sought are relevant and material to the issues in dispute, not otherwise privileged or protected by law, within the respondent's possession or control, and that attempts to obtain them voluntarily have been futile.
Discovery — Specificity Requirement — General Inspection Prohibited
An application for discovery must be specific and establish materiality. It must recite precisely what is needed and does not permit general inspection of the adversary's records. A general order for production of all bank statements over a lengthy period without specifying particular disputed transactions will be refused.
Discovery — Protection of Privacy — Third Party Rights
Where the documents sought would expose confidential transactions of third parties not involved in the dispute, the court will refuse discovery to protect the constitutional right to privacy under Article 27(2) of the Constitution. The right to privacy of the respondent and other tenants whose transactions appear in bank statements is a legitimate ground for refusing discovery.
Discovery — Fishing Expedition
A court will deny discovery if the application is being used as a fishing expedition to ascertain information for developing a case, or if it is intended to annoy, embarrass, oppress or injure the parties. Discovery will be refused where the applicant seeks documents for comparative purposes when he already possesses documents sufficient to prove his case.
Discovery — Tax Returns — Relevance to Underlying Claim
An order for production of tax returns will be refused where the underlying claim does not concern tax obligations and the applicant has not provided convincing justification for the order. Allegations of tax irregularities are matters to be brought to the attention of the revenue authority and are distinct from claims for breach of contract.

Legislation cited (4)

Cases cited (8)

  • Simbamanyo Estates Ltd and Another v Equity Bank Uganda Limited and Others (High Court Miscellaneous Application No. 583 of 2022)
  • Munyangabe Emmanuel v Equity Bank and Another (High Court Miscellaneous Application 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 (High Court Miscellaneous Application 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 (High Court Miscellaneous Application No. 175 of 2011)
  • Patricia Mutesi v Attorney General (High Court Miscellaneous Application No. 912 of 2016)
  • Kabaka of Buganda v Male H Mabirizi Kiwanuka (Civil Appeal 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 20 (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.