[2007] UGHC 28

[2007] UGHC 28

The court found that the issue of whether the plaintiff authored the article that led to his dismissal was central to the case. The document sought to be admitted was relevant to this issue. Any prejudice to the defendant from the late admission of the document could be mitigated by granting the defendant time to...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2007] UGHC 28
Parties
Plaintiff: Kiirya Hillary; Defendant: The New Vision Printing & Publishing Company Ltd.; Defendant: The Editor in Chief, New Vision Printing & Publishing Co. Ltd.
Court
High Court of Uganda
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Number
Civil Suit No. 144 of 2007
Procedural Posture
Civil Suit / Ruling on Preliminary Objection During Trial
Outcome
preliminary objection dismissed; document admitted as evidence
Legal Topics
Admissibility of Evidence, Pleadings, Dismissal of Employee, Documentary Evidence
Source Language
en
Civil Procedure Employment and Labour Admissibility of Evidence Pleadings Dismissal of Employee 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 2 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Kiirya Hillary

Plaintiff

The New Vision Printing & Publishing Company Ltd.

Defendant

The Editor in Chief, New Vision Printing & Publishing Co. Ltd.

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Suit / Ruling on Preliminary Objection During Trial

  1. 1 Whether the plaintiff can tender in evidence a document not agreed upon at the scheduling conference.
  2. 2 Whether admitting the document would prejudice the defendant by introducing a new ground of claim.
  3. 3 Whether the document is relevant to resolving the issue of the plaintiff's dismissal.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the issue of whether the plaintiff authored the article that led to his dismissal was central to the case. The document sought to be admitted was relevant to this issue. Any prejudice to the defendant from the late admission of the document could be mitigated by granting the defendant time to take instructions and, if necessary, recall the plaintiff for further cross-examination. The dictates of justice required that the plaintiff be allowed to tender in evidence documents he claims to have authored or not authored, as this would enable the court to fairly resolve the dispute. The preliminary objection was therefore dismissed, and the document was admitted as evidence.

Court Disposition

preliminary objection dismissed; document admitted as evidence

Orders

  • The plaintiff is allowed to tender the disputed document as part of his evidence.
  • The defendant may seek time to get instructions on the document and to cross-examine the plaintiff further on it if desired.