[2002] UGHC 2

[2002] UGHC 2

The court held that the consent order signed by all parties and countersigned by the judge governed the procedure for cross-examination of witnesses in the petition and superseded the requirements of Rule 15 of the Parliamentary Elections (Election Petitions) Rules, 1996. The application to require the petitioner to...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2002] UGHC 2
Parties
Applicant: Musinguzi Garuga James; Respondent: Amama Mbabazi; Respondent: Electoral Commission
Court
High Court of Uganda
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Number
Election Petition No. HCT-05-CV-EPA-0003 of 2001
Procedural Posture
Election Petition / Interlocutory Ruling
Outcome
Application to require leave for cross-examination denied; objection to relevance of question overruled.
Legal Topics
Cross Examination, Consent Orders, Relevance of Questions, Court Discretion
Source Language
en
Election Petitions Civil Procedure Cross Examination Consent Orders Relevance of Questions Court Discretion

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 3 Authorities cited 3 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Musinguzi Garuga James

Applicant

Amama Mbabazi

Respondent

Electoral Commission

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Election Petition / Interlocutory Ruling

  1. 1 Whether the petitioner must apply for leave to cross-examine witnesses under Rule 15 of the Parliamentary Elections (Election Petitions) Rules, 1996, in light of a prior consent order.
  2. 2 Whether the court should restrict cross-examination to specific matters as set out in an order for leave.
  3. 3 Whether the objection to the relevance of a particular question during cross-examination should be sustained.

Ratio Decidendi

The court held that the consent order signed by all parties and countersigned by the judge governed the procedure for cross-examination of witnesses in the petition and superseded the requirements of Rule 15 of the Parliamentary Elections (Election Petitions) Rules, 1996. The application to require the petitioner to seek leave for cross-examination was denied, as no grounds for setting aside the consent order were established. The court further ruled that objections to the relevance of questions during cross-examination should be addressed individually, and unless a question is clearly irrelevant, cross-examination should proceed as agreed. The court reaffirmed its residual power to limit...

Court Disposition

Application to require leave for cross-examination denied; objection to relevance of question overruled.

Orders

  • The petitioner is not required to apply for leave to cross-examine the witnesses listed in the consent order.
  • Cross-examination shall proceed as agreed in the consent order.