Wakilii

Uganda Electricity Board v Emmanuel Turyamuhika Kikonni (HCT-05-CV-MA-0182-2004 ) (HCT-05-CV-MA-0182-2004)

High Court · [2004] UGHC 69 · 2004 Application Dismissed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Interlocutory application under s.98 Civil Procedure Act to withhold judgment and reopen the defence case in the underlying civil suit
Decision
Application dismissed with costs to the respondent

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 application to reopen the defence case was dismissed. The court held that where counsel deliberately elected not to call witnesses listed in the pleadings, this was not a genuine mistake. The applicant failed to come to court with clean hands and due dispatch, filing the application after the deadline for submissions. Equity does not assist the indolent. The valuation report sought to be introduced was not included in the list of documents as required by Order 6 rule 1(b) CPR and could not be admitted.

Outcome

Application dismissed with costs to the respondent

Facts

Civil Suit No. 0021/2004 came up for hearing on 6 October 2004 after facts, issues and documents were agreed. The plaintiff called two witnesses and tendered documents including a land title, valuation report dated 17 May 2001, and a letter of protest dated 11 December 2001. At the close of the plaintiff's case, counsel for the defendant stated he was not calling any witnesses and the defence case was closed. Parties agreed to file written submissions by 26 October 2004. On 1 November 2004, the defendant filed an interlocutory application seeking to reopen the defence case to call a Chartered Surveyor and introduce a valuation report. The defendant averred that counsel had been unaware that the report existed as it was on another case file, and that counsel had closed the defence under the mistaken belief that no valuation had been carried out. The defendant's written statement of defence filed on 23 March 2004 listed three witnesses including a Chartered Surveyor, but did not include the valuation report in the list of documents.

Issues

  1. Whether the court should withhold judgment and reopen the defence case to permit the applicant to call a witness whose evidence was available but not led at trial.
  2. Whether the applicant's failure to call the witness at trial constituted a genuine mistake justifying the exercise of the court's discretion under s.98 of the Civil Procedure Act.

Orders

  • Application dismissed.
  • Costs awarded to the respondent.

Rules and key headnotes

Civil Procedure — Reopening of Defence Case — Deliberate Decision Not to Call Listed Witnesses — Whether a Mistake
Where counsel for a party deliberately elects not to call witnesses who are listed in the pleadings and whose evidence is available, this constitutes a deliberate procedural decision and not a genuine mistake, and does not warrant the exercise of the court's discretion under s.98 of the Civil Procedure Act to reopen the case.
Civil Procedure — Documentary Evidence — List of Documents — Mandatory Requirement
Order 6 rule 1(b) of the Civil Procedure Rules requires every pleading to be accompanied by a list of documents to be relied upon. A document not included in that list cannot be introduced in evidence at a later stage, and an application to reopen the case for that purpose will not succeed.
Civil Procedure — Equitable Discretion — Clean Hands and Due Dispatch
In exercising its discretion under s.98 of the Civil Procedure Act, the court applies equitable principles: a party seeking equitable relief must come to court with clean hands and due dispatch. A party who fails to file submissions by the agreed deadline and then applies to reopen the case after that deadline has not acted with due dispatch and equity will not assist.
Civil Procedure — Genuine Mistake — Distinction from Deliberate Procedural Choice
A genuine mistake such as an advocate noting the wrong date in a diary and failing to appear may warrant a rehearing. However, a deliberate decision by fully instructed counsel not to call available witnesses does not constitute a genuine mistake and is distinguishable from cases where rehearing is granted on grounds of genuine mistake.

Legislation cited (2)

Cases cited (1)

  • Kalemera v Salaama Estates Ltd [1971] EA 284

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Uganda Electricity Board v Emmanuel Turyamuhika Kikonni (HCT-05-CV-MA-0182-2004 ) (HCT-05-CV-MA-0182-2004) [2004] UGHC 69 (16 November 2004)
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.