Wakilii

Were v Sam Sewanyana and Another (Civil Application Number 252 of 2013)

Court of Appeal · [2015] UGCA 2031 · 2015 Application Granted AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Application to adduce additional evidence in a pending civil appeal from the High Court
Decision
Application granted; additional evidence admitted; matter to proceed to hearing of main 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

The Court of Appeal allowed the application to adduce additional evidence consisting of a handwriting expert report and affidavits alleging forgery of documents used by the second respondent to obtain Letters of Administration. The Court held that the evidence was relevant to the appeal, credible, brought without undue delay, and capable of influencing the outcome. The evidence related to grounds of appeal challenging the propriety of the Letters of Administration and shareholding in Goodman Agencies Ltd. Costs were ordered to abide the outcome of the main appeal.

Outcome

Application granted; additional evidence admitted; matter to proceed to hearing of main appeal

Facts

In 1993, the applicant Nicholas Were and his wife Evelyn Were incorporated Goodman Agencies Limited, holding 75% and 25% of shares respectively. In 1995, the applicant sold 25% of his shares to the first respondent Sam Sewanyana. In 2001, Sewanyana purportedly relinquished his shares to the applicant via an unregistered transfer which Sewanyana denies signing. Another purported transfer between the applicant and Evelyn Were was also signed but not registered. The second respondent Karlson Ngolobe obtained Letters of Administration to his late mother Evelyn Were's estate on 27 July 2006 and subsequently claimed her shares in Goodman Agencies Limited. The applicant alleged that the respondents filed forged documents in the company registry and that the second respondent forged consent letters to obtain the Letters of Administration. A handwriting expert report dated 29 July 2015 examined the disputed documents. The applicant sought to adduce this report and supporting affidavits as additional evidence in his pending appeal from Company Cause No. 44 of 2007.

Issues

  1. Whether the Court of Appeal should exercise its discretion to admit additional evidence in the form of a handwriting expert report and affidavits alleging forgery of documents used to obtain Letters of Administration.

Orders

  • Application to adduce additional evidence allowed.
  • Applicant to file a supplementary record of appeal within 7 days and serve the respondents.
  • Respondent may file a reply within 14 days.
  • Main appeal to be fixed for hearing.
  • Costs to abide the outcome of the main appeal.

Rules and key headnotes

Civil Procedure — Appellate Practice — Additional Evidence — Principles for Admission
An appellate court may exercise its discretion to admit additional evidence only in exceptional circumstances, which include: (i) discovery of new and important matters of evidence which, after the exercise of due diligence, was not within the knowledge of or could not have been produced at the time of the suit by the party seeking to adduce it; (ii) the evidence must be relevant to the issues; (iii) it must be credible in the sense that it is capable of belief; (iv) the evidence must be such that, if given, it would probably have an influence on the result of the case, although it need not be decisive; (v) the affidavit in support should have attached to it proof of the evidence sought to be given; and (vi) the application must be brought without undue delay.
Evidence — Forgery and Fraud — Court's Duty to Address Illegality
Courts are obliged not to close their eyes to illegalities like forgery or fraud. A court of law cannot sanction what is illegal, and illegality once brought to the attention of the court overrides all questions of pleading, including admissions made thereon.
Civil Procedure — Appellate Practice — Inherent Powers of Court
Rule 2(2) of the Judicature (Court of Appeal Rules) Directions vests inherent powers in the Court of Appeal to make such orders as are necessary to meet the ends of justice or to prevent abuse of the process of the court, including setting aside judgments which have been proved null and void after they have been passed.

Legislation cited (4)

Cases cited (2)

  • Kawooya v National Council for Higher Education (Miscellaneous Application No. 8 of 2013)
  • Makula International Ltd v Cardinal Nsubuga and Another [1982] HCB 11

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Were v Sam Sewanyana and Another (Civil Application Number 252 of 2013) [2015] UGCA 2031 (2 December 2015)
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.