Zzimwe loses appeal for new evidence over seizure of equipment
Court dismissed an appeal by Zzimwe Enterprises, Hardwares and Construction to file new evidence. Photo / Courtesy
What you need to know:
- Zzimwe had in 2012 sued government for wrongful termination of its contract to rehabilitate Kalapata-Piire Road in Kaabong District
Zzimwe Enterprises, Hardwares and Construction has lost an appeal, in which the company had sought leave of court to present new evidence against the government, in a case in which it accuses government of illegally terminating its contract.
The contract, which was awarded in 2008 for rehabilitation of Kalapata-Piire Road in Kaabong District, was terminated, prompting Zzimwe to file a case against the Attorney General, the legal government representative. The case was filed in 2012 at the Commercial Division of the High Court.
Zzimwe, according to court documents, had sought general and compensatory damages for loss of construction equipment and income.
The construction company also wanted court to reward it punitive and aggravated damages for the illegal seizure of its construction equipment.
However, court dismissed the case, slapping Zzimwe with costs.
Being dissatisfied with the dismissal, Zzimwe lodged an appeal, before seeking leave of the Court of Appeal to present additional evidence, which had been unavailable by the time of filling the case in.
Zzimwe claimed the new evidence had been discovered later and could not be tabled at first trial.
However, in a lead judgement by Justice Monica Mugyenyi, a panel of three judges reasoned that whereas the case had been hinged on the handling of road construction equipment upon termination of the contract, there was evidence to state that government had not seized Zzimwe’s equipment as it had been alleged.
The judges, including Justice Irene Mulyagonja and Justice Christopher Madrama, cited a September 4, 2012 letter from the Kaabong District resident district commissioner that had requested Zzimwe to collect abandoned equipment from the roadside, and relocate it to a place where its security could be guaranteed.
“In my view, the two year delay in lodging this application is inexcusable ... evidence were lying in the Ministry of Works … the applicant with reasonable diligence would have come across them earlier,” court ruled before dismissing the case.
