Wakilii

Walanyira v Kavuya & 2 Ors (Miscellaneous Application. No. 213 of 2015)

Court of Appeal · [2016] UGCA 51 · 2016 Application Referred to Full Court AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Application to a single Justice for leave to adduce additional evidence on appeal
Decision
Application adjourned for determination by the full Court hearing the appeal

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

On an application by a single Justice to admit additional evidence (handwriting expert and police auditor reports allegedly revealing fraud) under Rule 30(1)(b) of the Court of Appeal Rules, the Justice restated the exceptional circumstances governing admission of additional evidence on appeal. He held that the nature and impact of the proposed evidence were critical to the entire appeal, such that the discretion was better exercised by the full Court hearing the substantive appeal rather than by a single Justice. The application was adjourned under Rule 53(1) to be heard and determined by the full Court, with costs to abide the outcome of the main appeal.

Outcome

Application adjourned for determination by the full Court hearing the appeal

Facts

On 18 January 2007 the applicant borrowed UGX 170,000,000 from the second respondent at 10% interest per month for six months. The applicant and the first and second respondents signed a sale agreement for two properties relating to the transaction. The first and second respondents later transferred the two properties to the third respondent without the applicant's consent. The applicant sued in the High Court (Commercial Division) under Civil Suit No. 560 of 2007, but the High Court decided against him. After the suit was determined, the applicant obtained reports of a handwriting expert dated 25 March 2014 and 9 September 2014, and accessed a police auditor's report dated 19 December 2014, all of which allegedly indicated that the first respondent had committed fraud in the sale and transfer of the two properties. The applicant sought to admit these reports as additional evidence on appeal.

Issues

  1. Whether the applicant established sufficient reason for the Court to admit additional evidence on appeal under Rule 30(1)(b) of the Court of Appeal Rules.
  2. Whether a single Justice should exercise the discretion to admit additional evidence or refer it to the full Court.

Orders

  • The application is adjourned under Rule 53(1) of the Rules of this Court to be heard and determined by the full Court hearing the appeal.
  • The costs of this application shall abide the outcome of the main appeal.

Rules and key headnotes

Appeals — Additional Evidence on Appeal — Exceptional Circumstances under Rule 30(1)(b)
An appellate court may exercise its discretion to admit additional evidence only in exceptional circumstances, namely where the evidence was discovered after due diligence and was not within the party's knowledge or producible at trial, is relevant to the issues, is credible, would probably influence the result though need not be decisive, is supported by proof attached to the affidavit, and the application is brought without undue delay.
Single Justice — Exercise of Discretion — Reference to Full Court
Where the exercise of the discretion to admit additional evidence is of such importance that it goes to the heart of the entire appeal, a single Justice may decline to determine the application and instead adjourn it under Rule 53(1) for hearing and determination by the full Court constituted to hear the substantive appeal.

Legislation cited (6)

  • Judicature (Court of Appeal Rules) Directions r.30
  • Judicature (Court of Appeal Rules) Directions r.31
  • Judicature (Court of Appeal Rules) Directions r.43(1)
  • Judicature (Court of Appeal Rules) Directions r.43(2)
  • Judicature (Court of Appeal Rules) Directions r.30(1)(b)
  • Judicature (Court of Appeal Rules) Directions r.53(1)

Cases cited (3)

  • Makubuya Enock William t/a Polly Post v Bulaim Muwanga Kibirige t/a Kowloon Garment Industry (Civil Application No. 133 of 2014)
  • Bangirana Kawoya v National Council for Higher Education (Miscellaneous Application No. 8 of 2013)
  • Attorney General v Paul Kawanga Ssemwogerere and Others (Constitutional Application No. 2 of 2004)

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Walanyira Vs Kavuya & 2 Ors (Miscellaneous Application. No. 213 of 2015) [2016] UGCA 51 (7 April 2016)
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.