THE EVIDENCE ACT

<p>The Evidence Act governs how evidence is presented and used in court proceedings in Uganda. It applies to all cases in the Supreme Court, Court of Appeal, High Court, and Magistrates Courts, but does not cover affidavits or arbitration. This Act sets out the rules on what evidence can be admitted, who can testify, and how to prove facts. Whether you are a party to a lawsuit or a witness, understanding these rules helps ensure a fair trial.</p><h3>Key Definitions</h3><p>Knowing the key terms under the Act is essential. A <strong>court</strong> includes judges, magistrates, jurors, and assessors (but not arbitrators). A <strong>document</strong> means any recorded matter. <strong>Evidence</strong> is anything used to prove or disprove facts. A <strong>fact</strong> is something perceived by the senses or a mental condition. A <strong>fact in issue</strong> is directly relevant to a legal right or liability. <strong>Proof</strong> occurs when a court believes a fact is so probable that a prudent person would act on it.</p><h3>Scope and Application</h3><p>You can only present evidence that relates directly to facts in issue or other facts the Act says are relevant. This prevents irrelevant information from wasting the court's time. Facts that are part of the same transaction, even if at a different time or place, are also relevant. The Act applies to both civil and criminal proceedings.</p><h3>Relevance Rules</h3><p>The Act lists many situations where facts become relevant. For example, you can present evidence of motive, preparation, or conduct that helps explain why something happened. Facts that show the occasion, cause, or effect of an event are relevant. If there is a reasonable suspicion of a conspiracy, statements or acts of any conspirator about the plan can be used against all of them. Facts that contradict or make a disputed fact more or less likely are also relevant. In lawsuits for damages, any fact helping the court decide the amount is relevant. When a right or custom is in question, transactions or instances that created, claimed, or denied that right are relevant. Evidence of a person's state of mind (like intention, knowledge, good faith) or bodily feelings is relevant when that state is in question. Patterns of similar past acts can be used to show intent rather than accident. Business routines can help prove that a specific act occurred. These rules allow the court to consider the full context of a case.</p><h3>Admissions</h3><p>An <strong>admission</strong> is any statement (spoken or written) that suggests something about a fact in issue. It can be used as evidence against the person who made it. Statements made by a party, their agent, or certain persons with a financial interest can be admissions. However, an admission is not conclusive proof but may stop the person from later denying the fact (estoppel). Oral admissions about the contents of a document are generally not allowed unless you can use secondary evidence. In civil cases, you can prevent an admission from being used if it was made on condition of confidentiality.</p><h3>Confessions</h3><p>A <strong>confession</strong> made while in police custody is generally not admissible unless a senior police officer (Assistant Inspector rank or above) or a magistrate was present. A confession before a magistrate while in custody alone is not enough for a conviction; other material evidence must implicate you. Confessions obtained through violence, force, threats, or promises are irrelevant and cannot be used. However, if the improper influence is completely removed before the confession, it may become relevant. A confession does not become invalid simply because it was made under a promise of secrecy, deception, or while drunk, or because the person was not warned. In joint trials, a confession by one accused that mentions another can be considered against both. If an accused person gives information that leads to the discovery of a fact, that part directly relating to the discovered fact can be used as evidence even if it is a confession.</p><h3>Statements by Unavailable Persons</h3><p>Statements made by someone who has died or cannot be found may be admissible in specific situations, such as dying declarations about the cause of death, statements made in ordinary business records, statements against the maker's financial interest, opinions on public rights or family relationships, and statements in wills or on tombstones made before the dispute arose. Previous testimony from a witness who is now unavailable can also be used if the earlier case involved the same parties and the opposing party had a chance to cross-examine.</p><h3>Judgments as Evidence</h3><p>Previous judgments can bar a second suit on the same issues (res judicata). Final judgments in probate, matrimonial, admiralty, or insolvency cases are conclusive proof of legal status or ownership. Other judgments involving public matters are relevant but not conclusive. However, you can challenge a judgment by proving the court lacked competence or that it was obtained by fraud.</p><h3>Opinions and Expert Evidence</h3><p>When the court needs to decide issues involving foreign law, science, art, handwriting, or fingerprints, it may consider the opinion of a person specially skilled in that field (an <strong>expert</strong>). Facts that support or contradict an expert opinion are also relevant. Handwriting can be proved by a witness familiar with the person's writing. Opinions on the existence of a right or custom, or on local terms, are admissible. Conduct can be used to prove family relationships, but not alone to prove marriage in divorce or bigamy cases. The grounds for an opinion must be given.</p><h3>Character Evidence</h3><p>In civil cases, evidence of a person's character is generally irrelevant. In criminal cases, evidence of your good character is relevant. Evidence of bad character is generally not allowed, but there are exceptions: if you raise your good character, if it is needed to prove the current charge, if your defence attacks the victim's character, or if you give evidence against a co-accused. If you choose to testify, you can be cross-examined about your guilt of the offence charged. Character can affect damages in civil cases, but only general reputation, not specific acts.</p><h3>Burden of Proof</h3><p>The <strong>burden of proof</strong> lies on the person who asserts a fact, especially if they would lose without evidence. In criminal cases, the prosecution must prove your guilt beyond reasonable doubt, but you may need to prove exceptions or private facts. In civil cases, facts only known to you must be proved by you. If a person has not been heard from for seven years, the law presumes they are dead. A child born during a valid marriage is presumed legitimate. The court may also presume facts based on common life patterns.</p><h3>Documentary Evidence</h3><p>To prove the contents of a document, you must generally produce the original (primary evidence). Secondary evidence (certified copies, oral accounts) is allowed only in specific situations, such as when the original is lost, destroyed, or held by an opponent who refuses to produce it. You must give notice to produce the original before using a copy. Signatures and handwriting must be proved. Attested documents require at least one attesting witness to prove execution, with exceptions. Public documents (e.g., government records) can be proved by certified copies. The court presumes certain documents are genuine, such as official gazettes, certified copies, and documents over 30 years old from proper custody.</p><h3>Witness Competence and Examination</h3><p>Every person is competent to testify unless the court finds they cannot understand questions or give rational answers (e.g., due to age or mental condition). Mute witnesses can give evidence by writing or signs. Judges and magistrates cannot be compelled to testify about their judicial acts. Spouses can testify in criminal cases with consent, and are compellable for the defence. In civil cases, parties and their spouses are compellable. State secrets are protected from disclosure. Lawyers must keep client communications confidential, except for communications in furtherance of an illegal purpose or facts showing a crime after employment. Witnesses cannot refuse to answer relevant questions even if self-incriminating, but such answers cannot be used to arrest or prosecute except for perjury. An accomplice's testimony alone can lead to a conviction.</p><p>The court controls the order of examination: a witness is first examined by the party who called them (examination-in-chief), then cross-examined by the other side, and finally re-examined by the original party. Leading questions (suggesting the answer) are generally not allowed during examination-in-chief but are allowed in cross-examination. The court can forbid indecent, insulting, or needlessly offensive questions. Witnesses can refresh their memory using documents they made or read at the time. The court may also ask questions to discover the truth.</p><h3>Estoppel</h3><p>The principle of <strong>estoppel</strong> prevents a person from contradicting something they previously caused another to believe and act upon. For example, a tenant cannot deny the landlord's title, and a bailee cannot deny the bailor's authority.</p><p>This summary provides an overview of the Evidence Act for informational purposes. It is not a substitute for professional legal advice. If you are involved in court proceedings, consult a qualified lawyer.</p>

A judge in a Ugandan court may decide to assume that something happened if it seems likely based on everyday life, common human behavior, and normal business practices. For example, if it is common for people to post letters, the court may presume a letter was received. This helps the court make decisions without requiring direct proof of every small detail. However, this presumption is not automatic; the court must consider the specific circumstances of the case. The court has discretion to draw reasonable inferences from how things usually happen.

Uganda's Evidence Act Section 113 allows courts to assume facts likely true based on normal human behavior, natural events, and business routines in each case.

Section 113: Court may presume facts based on common life patterns

The court may presume the existence of any fact which it thinks likely to have happened, regard being had to the common course of natural events, human conduct and public and private business, in their relation to the facts of the particular case.

Court may presume existence of certain facts

Section 113: Court may presume facts based on common life patterns

113.Court may presume existence of certain facts

Plain English Summary