[2019] UGHCFD 41

[2019] UGHCFD 41

The application was dismissed because the evidence sought—bank records relating to the Bugolobi house—was not relevant to the grounds of appeal in Civil Appeal No. 33 of 2016. The ownership of the Bugolobi house had already been decided and did not feature in the appeal. The court found that the evidence was not only additional but also irrelevant to the matters under appeal, and there was no indication that it could not have been availed during the hearing of Divorce Cause No. 11 of 2016. Accordingly, the application lacked merit and was dismissed, with costs awarded to the respondent.

Citation
[2019] UGHCFD 41
Parties
Applicant: Namuli Daisy; Respondent: Edward Tibahwerayo
Court
HC: Family Division (Uganda)
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Judgment Date
12 September 2019
Case Number
Miscellaneous Application No. 384 of 2018
Procedural Posture
Miscellaneous Application / Ruling
Outcome
application dismissed
Judges
Kitariisibwa-Katunguka, J
Legal Topics
Bankers Books Inspection, Evidence Admissibility, Matrimonial Property Dispute, Costs Award
Source Language
English
Civil Procedure Family and Children Bankers Books Inspection Evidence Admissibility Matrimonial Property Dispute Costs Award

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 3 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Namuli Daisy

Applicant

Edward Tibahwerayo

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Miscellaneous Application / Ruling

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the applicant should be granted leave to inspect the respondent's and her own bank records for the period 2007–2010.
  2. 2 Whether the evidence sought is relevant to the grounds of appeal in Civil Appeal No. 33 of 2016.
  3. 3 Whether the application has merit in light of the decided ownership of the Bugolobi house.

Ratio Decidendi

The application was dismissed because the evidence sought—bank records relating to the Bugolobi house—was not relevant to the grounds of appeal in Civil Appeal No. 33 of 2016. The ownership of the Bugolobi house had already been decided and did not feature in the appeal. The court found that the evidence was not only additional but also irrelevant to the matters under appeal, and there was no indication that it could not have been availed during the hearing of Divorce Cause No. 11 of 2016. Accordingly, the application lacked merit and was dismissed, with costs awarded to the respondent.

Court Disposition

application dismissed

Orders

  • The application is dismissed.
  • The applicant shall bear the costs.