Wakilii

Wilobo Pe Yot Limited v Pader District Local Government (Miscellaneous Application 3 of 2024)

High Court · [2025] UGHC 36 · 2025 Application Dismissed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Application arising from High Court Civil Suit (Gulu) No. 031/2013 seeking leave to reopen case and recall witness
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 High Court dismissed an application to recall a witness for a third time where the applicant complained that transcribed court proceedings were inaccurate but failed to provide any material basis for the complaint. The court found the typed record precisely matched the judge's longhand notes, that the applicant was dissatisfied with cross-examination rather than genuinely identifying discrepancies, and that allowing recall after the defence had begun evidence would prejudice the respondent and constitute abuse of process.

Outcome

Application dismissed with costs to the respondent

Facts

Wilobo Pe Yot Limited filed High Court Civil Suit No. 031/2013 against Pader District Local Government. The applicant's sole witness, its Managing Director Geoffrey Oywek, testified in chief before three different judges between 2019 and 2022. Cross-examination was completed on 14 December 2022 before Justice George Okello. The applicant was permitted to recall its witness on 10 May 2023 and testified at length, then was cross-examined again on 19 September 2023 before closing its case. The respondent called its witness who commenced testimony. The applicant then filed this application on 3 May 2024 alleging six discrepancies between the typed court record and what the witness actually testified, seeking to recall the witness for a third time.

Issues

  1. Whether the applicant has established sufficient cause for the court to judiciously exercise its discretion and recall its witness to testify before the court

Orders

  • Miscellaneous Application No. 03/2024 is hereby dismissed.
  • The Applicant shall bear the Costs of the Application.

Rules and key headnotes

Civil Procedure — Recall of Witnesses — Discretion of Court — Prerequisites for Exercise
The court's discretion to recall a witness under Section 98 of the Civil Procedure Act must be exercised judiciously and reasonably, and a witness should only be recalled in deserving circumstances where it is essential for the just determination of the case, provided the parties are given adequate opportunity to cross-examine.
Evidence — Court Record — Accuracy of Transcription — Burden of Proof
Where a party alleges discrepancies or inaccuracies in the typed transcript of court proceedings, the party bears the burden of providing material evidence to substantiate the complaint and discredit the certified proceedings, which are presumed to be true, authentic and accurate transcriptions of the evidence given.
Civil Procedure — Abuse of Process — Multiple Recall Applications — Prejudice to Opposing Party
Permitting a party to recall its witness for a third time after the defence has begun presenting evidence, where the complaint is not made in good faith and the party seeks to plug perceived holes in cross-examination testimony rather than address genuine discrepancies, constitutes an abuse of the process of court and is prejudicial to the opposing party.
Evidence — Recall of Witnesses — Comparison of Typed Record with Longhand Notes
Where the typed court record precisely matches the judge's longhand written record of proceedings, there is no discrepancy or inaccuracy in the court record on that basis.

Legislation cited (4)

Cases cited (2)

  • Godfrey Magezi and Another v Sudhir Ruparelia (Supreme Court Civil Application No. 10 of 2002)
  • Onek Manacy and Another v Omona Michael (High Court Civil Appeal (Gulu) No. 32 of 2016)

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Wilobo Pe Yot Limited v Pader District Local Government (Miscellaneous Application 3 of 2024) [2025] UGHC 36 (28 January 2025)
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.