[2004] UGHC 69

[2004] UGHC 69

The court found that the applicant's counsel made a deliberate decision not to call any witnesses, despite having listed them in the pleadings, and that the omission to introduce the valuation report or call its maker was not a genuine mistake but a conscious choice. The requirements of Order 6 rule 1(b) CPR were...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2004] UGHC 69
Parties
Applicant: Uganda Electricity Board; Respondent: Emmanuel Turyamuhika Kikoni
Court
High Court of Uganda
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Number
HCT-05-CV-MA-0182-2004
Procedural Posture
Miscellaneous Application / Ruling on Application to Reopen Defence and Withhold Judgment
Outcome
application dismissed
Legal Topics
Reopening Defence, Withholding Judgment, Mistake of Counsel, Admissibility of Evidence
Source Language
en
Civil Procedure Reopening Defence Withholding Judgment Mistake of Counsel Admissibility 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 3 Authorities cited 3 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Uganda Electricity Board

Applicant

Emmanuel Turyamuhika Kikoni

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Miscellaneous Application / Ruling on Application to Reopen Defence and Withhold Judgment

  1. 1 Whether the applicant should be allowed to reopen the defence case to call a witness after closing its case.
  2. 2 Whether judgment in Civil Suit No. 0021/2004 should be withheld pending reopening of the defence.
  3. 3 Whether the omission by counsel for the applicant constitutes a genuine mistake justifying the exercise of court's discretion.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the applicant's counsel made a deliberate decision not to call any witnesses, despite having listed them in the pleadings, and that the omission to introduce the valuation report or call its maker was not a genuine mistake but a conscious choice. The requirements of Order 6 rule 1(b) CPR were not met, as the intended evidence was not included in the list of documents or witnesses. The application was filed after the deadline for submissions, showing lack of diligence. The court held that equity does not assist those who are indolent or come to court without clean hands. The discretion under Section 98 of the Civil Procedure Act could not be exercised in the...

Court Disposition

application dismissed

Orders

  • The application to reopen the defence and withhold judgment is dismissed with costs.