KAMPALA, Court | Justice Anup Singh Choudry’s fight over a property in Entebbe has taken a new twist, as with the High Court of Uganda granting him permission to reopen his case against UMEME Limited. At the center of the dispute is a bungalow, long since demolished, and the installation of power lines by UMEME that Justice Choudry claims encroached on his property. After years of legal wrangling, a discovery made by Choudry has breathed new life into the case—original building plans dating back to 1996, which he believes could change everything.

The bungalow at Plot 4 Nambi Road was demolished in 2008, but its memory lingers on in this legal battle. Justice Choudry argues that UMEME, Uganda’s leading electricity distribution company, installed power lines in the space once occupied by his bungalow, extensions, and boy’s quarter. For years, Choudry has pursued justice, representing himself for much of the case, and now believes that the newly rediscovered plans will prove that UMEME’s installations crossed into his property unlawfully.

It’s not unusual for long legal battles to get tangled in the technicalities of evidence, and this case is no exception. Justice Choudry had closed his case when he unexpectedly stumbled upon the original plans for the bungalow, filed with Entebbe Municipal Council in 1996. With these plans in hand, Choudry approached the court again, seeking to reopen the case and present what he called “crucial new evidence.” He argued that this evidence had been forgotten due to the long time between the demolition of the bungalow and the trial’s proceedings, adding that this discovery could shed new light on his claim.

UMEME, however, was less than enthusiastic about the reopening of the case. The company’s defense was swift, arguing that the building plans were irrelevant to the current legal issues and would do little to change the outcome of the trial. According to UMEME, the plans relate primarily to a garage extension rather than the main bungalow and, therefore, have no bearing on the dispute. They further argued that the reopening of the case would cause undue delays and was nothing more than a tactic to prolong the litigation.

Reopening a case after it has been closed is no small matter. Ugandan law is clear on the need for finality in legal proceedings, but there are provisions for reopening a case when new evidence that could significantly affect the outcome comes to light. Justice Ssekaana Musa, presiding over the case, had to weigh the merits of reopening the matter against the principle of legal closure. Ultimately, the court sided with Justice Choudry.

Justice Ssekaana’s ruling emphasized the importance of fairness and substantive justice. He noted that the original building plans were not merely an afterthought but a significant piece of evidence that could help resolve the central issue in the case: whether UMEME’s power lines had encroached on the land where the bungalow once stood. The court also acknowledged that the discovery of these plans was not due to negligence but rather the natural passage of time and the challenges of self-representation. The decision to allow the reopening of the case was driven by the court’s commitment to ensuring that all relevant facts are considered, especially in a case that involves property rights.

UMEME will now have the opportunity to challenge the new evidence and cross-examine its relevance in court, but for Justice Choudry, this ruling represents a chance to fully tell his story—a story that began years ago when his home was torn down and the battle over his land began.