[1994] UGHC 25

[1994] UGHC 25

The court held that the plaintiff had the opportunity to call all necessary evidence during its case and that it is procedurally improper to request leave to adduce further evidence after the defence has closed its case, especially when the witness sought was not previously called. The discretion granted to the...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[1994] UGHC 25
Parties
Plaintiff: Nangunga Livestock Co-operative Society Ltd; Defendant: M/S Energo Project Corporation
Court
High Court of Uganda
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Number
Civil Suit No.201 of 1993
Procedural Posture
Civil Suit / Ruling on Application to Adduce Further Evidence After Closure of Both Parties' Cases
Outcome
preliminary objection upheld; application to adduce further evidence denied
Legal Topics
Adducing Further Evidence, Order of Witnesses, Court Discretion, Closure of Evidence
Source Language
en
Civil Procedure Adducing Further Evidence Order of Witnesses Court Discretion Closure of 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 4 Authorities cited 6 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Nangunga Livestock Co-operative Society Ltd

Plaintiff

M/S Energo Project Corporation

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Suit / Ruling on Application to Adduce Further Evidence After Closure of Both Parties' Cases

  1. 1 Whether the plaintiff should be granted leave to adduce further evidence after closure of both parties' cases.
  2. 2 Whether the court has discretion to allow new witnesses at this stage of proceedings.
  3. 3 Whether the application to adduce further evidence is procedurally proper.

Ratio Decidendi

The court held that the plaintiff had the opportunity to call all necessary evidence during its case and that it is procedurally improper to request leave to adduce further evidence after the defence has closed its case, especially when the witness sought was not previously called. The discretion granted to the court under Order 16 Rule 12 of the Civil Procedure Rules is for the court to call and question witnesses at its own instance, not for parties to introduce new witnesses after closure of evidence. Allowing the plaintiff to call new witnesses at this stage would amount to opening new issues and undermine the procedural order of trial. The application was therefore denied, and the...

Court Disposition

preliminary objection upheld; application to adduce further evidence denied

Orders

  • Plaintiff's application for leave to adduce further evidence after closure of both parties' cases is denied.
  • Preliminary objection by defendant is upheld with costs.