[1993] UGHC 8

[1993] UGHC 8

The court held that the photostat copy of the agreement (Annexture 'E') is admissible as secondary evidence under the Evidence Act because the original document is in the possession of the defendant or her counsel, who are the adverse parties. The requirement for notice to produce the original was dispensed with due...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[1993] UGHC 8
Parties
Plaintiff: Dr. Kakonge; Defendant: Christine Bitabeiho
Court
High Court of Uganda
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Number
Civil Suit No. 755 of 1992
Procedural Posture
Civil Suit / Ruling on Admissibility of Secondary Evidence
Outcome
preliminary objection overruled
Legal Topics
Admissibility of Secondary Evidence, Notice to Produce, Ownership of Motor Vehicle, Fraud in Documentary Evidence
Source Language
en
Civil Procedure Land and Property Admissibility of Secondary Evidence Notice to Produce Ownership of Motor Vehicle Fraud in Documentary Evidence

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 5 Authorities cited 7 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Dr. Kakonge

Plaintiff

Christine Bitabeiho

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Suit / Ruling on Admissibility of Secondary Evidence

  1. 1 Whether a photostat copy of an agreement (Annexture 'E') is admissible as secondary evidence under the Evidence Act.
  2. 2 Whether notice to produce the original document was required in the circumstances of the case.
  3. 3 Whether the defendant's possession of the original document dispenses with the need for notice to produce.

Ratio Decidendi

The court held that the photostat copy of the agreement (Annexture 'E') is admissible as secondary evidence under the Evidence Act because the original document is in the possession of the defendant or her counsel, who are the adverse parties. The requirement for notice to produce the original was dispensed with due to the nature and circumstances of the case, specifically because the defendant must have known she would be required to produce the document and because allegations of fraud were made. The court rejected the argument that the document's status as an annexture to the plaint precluded its admission, and found that admitting the document would not cause injustice. Both Annexture...

Court Disposition

preliminary objection overruled

Orders

  • The photostat copy of Annexture 'E' is admitted as evidence.
  • The defendant's objection to admissibility is dismissed with costs.