Wakilii

Turyamureeba v Bagaza (Civil Appeal 2 of 2022)

High Court · [2024] UGHC 380 · 2024 Appeal Dismissed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Civil appeal from the judgment of the Chief Magistrate Grade One Court of Kiruhura at Sanga in a summary suit for recovery of money
Decision
Appeal dismissed; appellant remains liable to pay respondent UGX 8,000,000 plus costs as ordered by the trial court

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 the appeal and upheld the trial magistrate's judgment. The court found that the written agreement PEx1 dated 7th December 2016, under which the appellant borrowed UGX 8,000,000, was authenticated and not disproved. Oral evidence purporting to establish a different loan amount of UGX 2,000,000 and alleged repayment was inadmissible under Evidence Act s.92 to contradict the written contract. The court struck out the first ground of appeal as impermissibly general under Civil Procedure Rules Order 43 rule 1(2), but retained the second ground in the interest of justice. The appellant failed to discharge the burden of proving any exceptions under s.92 that would permit oral evidence to vary the written terms.

Outcome

Appeal dismissed; appellant remains liable to pay respondent UGX 8,000,000 plus costs as ordered by the trial court

Facts

The respondent filed a summary suit in the Chief Magistrate's Court claiming that on 7th December 2016, the appellant borrowed UGX 8,000,000 under a written agreement and failed to repay. The trial court entered judgment for the respondent. The appellant appealed, arguing that the written agreement was a forgery and that he had instead borrowed only UGX 2,000,000, which he repaid. The appellant produced no documentary evidence of the alleged different agreement or repayment and claimed that receipts were never issued and that the original agreement was torn up after repayment. A forensic examiner testified that it was a 50/50 likelihood the appellant signed the document, but confirmed that the guarantor's wife (the appellant's late wife) had written her signature. The guarantor and a witness both testified that they were present when the agreement was executed and signed PEx1. The trial magistrate found for the respondent and held that oral evidence could not be adduced to vary the written agreement.

Issues

  1. Whether the learned trial magistrate properly evaluated the evidence adduced in court.
  2. Whether the appellant is indebted to the respondent for the sum of UGX 8,000,000.
  3. Whether the appellant executed the sale agreement dated 7th December 2016.
  4. Whether oral evidence can be adduced to vary or contradict the written agreement under Evidence Act s.92.

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed.
  • Judgement and orders of the trial court upheld.
  • Costs awarded to the respondent to be borne by the appellant.

Rules and key headnotes

Civil Procedure — Grounds of Appeal — Formulation Requirements
A ground of appeal that fails to specify in what way and in which specific areas the trial court erred in evaluating evidence, and does not set out the particular wrong decision arrived at, is impermissibly general and does not comply with Civil Procedure Rules Order 43 rule 1(2), which requires grounds to be set forth concisely and under distinct heads without argument or narrative.
Evidence — Parol Evidence Rule — Oral Evidence to Vary Written Contract
Under Evidence Act s.91 and s.92, when the terms of a contract have been reduced into writing, oral evidence cannot be adduced to vary or alter the terms of the contract unless one of the exceptions in s.92(a)-(f) applies, such as fraud, mistake, want of consideration, or a separate oral agreement constituting a condition precedent.
Evidence — Burden of Proof — Party Alleging Variation of Written Agreement
A party alleging the existence of an oral agreement varying or contradicting a written contract bears the burden of proving that assertion to the satisfaction of the court, and mere oral testimony unsupported by documentary or corroborative evidence is insufficient to discharge that burden.
Evidence — Hearsay — Uncorroborated Testimony
Evidence of an agreement or transaction that relies solely on the testimony of the party asserting it, without corroboration from a witness who observed the transaction or documentary evidence, amounts to hearsay and cannot be relied upon by the court.
Civil Procedure — Duty of First Appellate Court — Re-evaluation of Evidence
A first appellate court is under a legal obligation founded in common law to re-appraise the evidence, weigh conflicting evidence, draw its own inferences and conclusions, and give the parties its own decision on issues of fact as well as law, making due allowance for the fact that it has neither seen nor heard the witnesses.

Legislation cited (9)

Cases cited (11)

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Turyamureeba v Bagaza (Civil Appeal 2 of 2022) [2024] UGHC 380 (29 May 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.