Wakilii

Total Marketing Uganda Limited v Jinja District Land Board & 4 Others (HCT-03-CV-CS 15 of 2017)

High Court · [2024] UGHC 947 · 2024 Preliminary Objection Upheld AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Preliminary objection to the 5th Defendant's attempt to introduce an additional witness statement after the Plaintiff closed its case without leave of court
Decision
Additional witness statement struck out; matter to proceed to defence on the pleadings already filed

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

Held that a defendant may not introduce new evidence through an additional witness statement after the plaintiff has closed its case and without leave of court. The introduction of such evidence at that stage amounts to an ambush and prejudices the plaintiff, who has already presented and rested its case based on the pleadings filed. Witness statements must be filed after the scheduling conference on the direction of the trial judge. Where a party seeks to file evidence out of time or after closure of the opposing party's case, leave of court must be sought and compelling reasons advanced. The preliminary objection was sustained and the additional witness statement expunged from the record.

Outcome

Additional witness statement struck out; matter to proceed to defence on the pleadings already filed

Facts

Total Marketing Uganda Limited brought a civil suit against Jinja District Land Board and four other defendants. After completion of the scheduling conference and exchange of witness statements, the plaintiff led its evidence and closed its case on 12 March 2024. Three months later, on 21 June 2024, the 5th Defendant filed an additional witness statement introducing new evidence in the form of a company resolution dated 1 January 2010, which had been obtained from the Uganda Registration Services Bureau on 29 November 2023. The additional witness statement was served on the plaintiff's counsel on 24 June 2024, one day before the defence case was to open. The plaintiff objected on the grounds that the 5th Defendant was seeking to ambush them with new evidence after they had closed their case, that the evidence had not been pleaded, and that the court had previously ruled that such evidence was inadmissible. The 5th Defendant argued that the evidence went to show the plaintiff had no cause of action and that leave of court was being sought to introduce it.

Issues

  1. Whether the 5th Defendant could serve an additional witness statement just before opening of the defence case and after the close of the Plaintiff's case without leave of court

Orders

  • Preliminary objection sustained.
  • The additional witness statement of the 5th Defendant filed on 21 June 2024 is expunged from the record.
  • The suit shall continue to defence to its logical conclusion.
  • The 5th Defendant shall pay costs to the Plaintiff.

Rules and key headnotes

Civil Procedure — Witness Statements — Filing After Scheduling Conference — Requirement for Leave of Court
A witness statement must be filed after the scheduling conference on the direction of the trial judge and served upon the opposite party. A witness who does not file a witness statement within the time fixed by the court cannot be heard except with leave of court.
Civil Procedure — Introduction of New Evidence — After Closure of Opposing Party's Case — Discretion of Court
Introducing new evidence after a party has closed its case is generally not allowed without permission from the trial court. The court's discretion to permit such evidence depends on whether it is in the interest of justice, the relevance and impact of the evidence, prejudice to the opposing party, and applicable procedural rules. The party seeking to introduce the evidence must apply for leave and provide valid reasons why the evidence was not introduced earlier.
Civil Procedure — Scheduling Conference — Purpose — Fairness and Avoidance of Prejudice
The purpose of a scheduling conference is to obtain points of agreement and disagreement by which issues are narrowed down for trial. The points of disagreement become the controversies on which to lead evidence. Where procedural requirements are thwarted, the notion of a fair trial is curtailed.
Evidence — Witness Statements Filed After Opposing Party Testifies — Ethical Considerations — Weight of Evidence
It is unethical to prepare witness statements having in mind the testimonies of the opposing party's witnesses. Evidence introduced in this manner is given trifling weight. A party may not read the written testimonies of the opposing party's witnesses, wait until they have all testified and rested their case, and then decide to bring additional evidence.
Civil Procedure — Pleadings — Introduction of New Facts Without Amendment — Prohibition
A party may not introduce new facts or a new line of defence that is inconsistent with previous pleadings except by way of amendment. The system of pleadings operates to define and delineate with clarity and precision the real matters in controversy between the parties. A party will not be allowed to succeed on a case not set up by him in his pleadings.

Legislation cited (10)

Cases cited (7)

  • Interfreight Forwarders Uganda Limited v East African Development Bank (Supreme Civil Appeal No. 33 of 1992)
  • Makula International vs. Cardinal Emmanuel Nsubuga
  • Okot & Others v Lamoo (Civil Appeal No. 26 of 2018)
  • Husain Hasanali Jivani v Merali Jivra Tajdin & Another (Civil Suit No. 471 of 2015)
  • Seruwagi Mohammed v Yuasa Investments Ltd (Civil Suit No. 324 of 2013)
  • Andiazi vs. Republic, [1967] EA 813 (CA)
  • Semande vs. Uganda, [1999] 1 E. A 321

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Total Marketing Uganda Limited v Jinja District Land Board & 4 Others (HCT-03-CV-CS 15 of 2017) [2024] UGHC 947 (28 August 2024)
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.