[2008] UGHC 51

[2008] UGHC 51

The court found that the respondent's request to cross-examine the applicant's deponent, Mohammed Mohammed Hamid, on his affidavit and attachments was justified, given the dispute over the authenticity of the payment vouchers. The court held that the applicant, through Hamid, must produce the voucher book containing...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2008] UGHC 51
Parties
Applicant: AYA Investments (U) Ltd; Respondent: M/S Kibeedi & Co. Advocates
Court
High Court of Uganda
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Number
Misc. Appl. No. 491 of 2008
Procedural Posture
Miscellaneous Application / Ruling on Preliminary Evidentiary Prayers Prior to Hearing Main Application
Outcome
preliminary evidentiary orders granted
Legal Topics
Advocate Client Bill of Costs, Taxation of Costs, Affidavit Evidence, Cross Examination, Garnishee Proceedings
Source Language
en
Civil Procedure Commercial and Corporate Advocate Client Bill of Costs Taxation of Costs Affidavit Evidence Cross Examination Garnishee Proceedings

Source-derived case record

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Downloadable case file Legal principles 2 Authorities cited 1 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

AYA Investments (U) Ltd

Applicant

M/S Kibeedi & Co. Advocates

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Miscellaneous Application / Ruling on Preliminary Evidentiary Prayers Prior to Hearing Main Application

  1. 1 Whether the respondent is entitled to cross-examine the applicant's deponents on their affidavits before the main application is heard.
  2. 2 Whether the applicant should be compelled to produce voucher books relevant to the disputed payment vouchers.
  3. 3 Whether the procedure adopted by the respondent in seeking cross-examination and production of documents is proper.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the respondent's request to cross-examine the applicant's deponent, Mohammed Mohammed Hamid, on his affidavit and attachments was justified, given the dispute over the authenticity of the payment vouchers. The court held that the applicant, through Hamid, must produce the voucher book containing the impugned vouchers and the books immediately before and after for examination. The court declined to summon the handwriting expert for cross-examination by the respondent at this stage, noting that the respondent had engaged the expert and could rely on his report, subject to the applicant's right to cross-examine. The orders were made as preliminary steps to ensure a fair...

Court Disposition

preliminary evidentiary orders granted

Orders

  • Mohammed Mohammed Hamid shall be summoned for cross-examination on his affidavit and attachments before the hearing of the main application.
  • The applicant, through Hamid, shall produce the voucher book containing the impugned payment vouchers and the books immediately before and after for examination.