[2014] UGHCCD 90

[2014] UGHCCD 90

The court found that both the criminal and civil matters arose from the same facts and subject matter, and the difference in progression was not within the applicant's control. The delay in filing the application was explainable due to difficulties in accessing the criminal court record. Applying the principles from Ladd v. Marshall, the court held that the evidence sought to be adduced would have an important influence on the outcome of the appeal and that there was no lack of diligence by the applicant. Therefore, the application to admit additional evidence and amend the memorandum of appeal was allowed.

Citation
[2014] UGHCCD 90
Parties
Applicant: Barbara Lule; Respondent: Sirive Musoke Mbidde
Court
HC: Civil Division (Uganda)
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Judgment Date
7 July 2014
Case Number
Misc. Application No. 082 of 2014
Procedural Posture
Miscellaneous Application / Application for Admission of Additional Evidence and Amendment of Memorandum of Appeal
Outcome
application allowed
Legal Topics
Admission of Additional Evidence, Amendment of Memorandum of Appeal, Standards of Proof, Delay in Application
Source Language
English
Civil Procedure Admission of Additional Evidence Amendment of Memorandum of Appeal Standards of Proof Delay in Application

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 6 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Barbara Lule

Applicant

Sirive Musoke Mbidde

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Miscellaneous Application / Application for Admission of Additional Evidence and Amendment of Memorandum of Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether additional evidence from the criminal case should be admitted in the civil appeal.
  2. 2 Whether the memorandum of appeal should be amended to include the new evidence.
  3. 3 Whether the delay in filing the application for additional evidence is justifiable.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that both the criminal and civil matters arose from the same facts and subject matter, and the difference in progression was not within the applicant's control. The delay in filing the application was explainable due to difficulties in accessing the criminal court record. Applying the principles from Ladd v. Marshall, the court held that the evidence sought to be adduced would have an important influence on the outcome of the appeal and that there was no lack of diligence by the applicant. Therefore, the application to admit additional evidence and amend the memorandum of appeal was allowed.

Court Disposition

application allowed

Orders

  • The ruling in criminal case 506/2012 is to form part of the record of Appeal No. CA. 74 of 2012.
  • The applicant is allowed to amend the memorandum of appeal and serve it on the opposite party.