[1994] UGHC 26

[1994] UGHC 26

The court held that the defendant's attempt to introduce expert evidence on forgery was inadmissible because forgery was not pleaded in the written statement of defence. The defendant had ample opportunity to amend the pleadings to include the allegation of forgery but failed to do so. The court emphasized that...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[1994] UGHC 26
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 Evidentiary Objection
Outcome
preliminary objection upheld
Legal Topics
Admissibility of Evidence, Pleadings and Amendments, Breach of Contract
Source Language
en
Civil Procedure Commercial and Corporate Admissibility of Evidence Pleadings and Amendments Breach of Contract

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 5 Authorities cited 7 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Nangunga Livestock Co-operative Society Ltd

Plaintiff

M/S Energo Project Corporation

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Suit / Ruling on Evidentiary Objection

  1. 1 Whether the expert report on alleged forgery of exhibit P1 is admissible when forgery was not pleaded in the defence.
  2. 2 Whether the defendant can introduce evidence of forgery at this stage without amending pleadings.
  3. 3 Whether the preliminary objection to the expert evidence should be upheld.

Ratio Decidendi

The court held that the defendant's attempt to introduce expert evidence on forgery was inadmissible because forgery was not pleaded in the written statement of defence. The defendant had ample opportunity to amend the pleadings to include the allegation of forgery but failed to do so. The court emphasized that parties are bound by their pleadings and cannot introduce evidence on issues not raised therein. Allowing such evidence would constitute a departure from the original proceedings, contrary to Order 6 Rule 6 of the Civil Procedure Rules. The preliminary objection by the plaintiff was therefore upheld, and the expert report was excluded from evidence.

Court Disposition

preliminary objection upheld

Orders

  • The preliminary objection by the plaintiff is upheld with costs.
  • The expert report on alleged forgery is excluded from evidence.