Share
Mugerwa v Muzzha (Miscellaneous Application No. 2156 of 2024) [2025] UGHC 250 (30 April 2025)
- Citation
- [2025] UGHC 250
- Status
- Judgment
- Jurisdiction
- Uganda
- Court
- High Court of Uganda
- Panel
- Kazaarwe, J
- Case number
- Miscellaneous Application No. 2156 of 2024
- Language
- English
More details
- Court
- High Court of Uganda
- Panel
- Kazaarwe, J
- Case number
- Miscellaneous Application No. 2156 of 2024
- Language
- English
On this page
Professional case brief
Research organized from the available case record
01
Holding and result
The court found that the applicant's affidavit contained a fundamental falsehood, as the record showed that a Written Statement of Defence had been filed on his behalf, contradicting his claim of not being served or represented. This untruth rendered the application wholly unmerited. The court emphasized that affidavits must reflect the truth, and deliberate deception undermines the integrity of judicial proceedings. Consequently, the application to set aside the ex parte judgment and for stay of execution was dismissed with costs.
Court disposition
application dismissed with costs
Orders
- The application is dismissed with costs.
02
Material facts
Parties
Mugerwa Geoffrey
ApplicantMuzzha Zedekiah
Respondent03
Procedural history
Posture
Miscellaneous Application / Ruling
04
Questions and positions
Legal issues
- 01
Whether the ex parte judgment/decree should be set aside due to alleged lack of service of summons on the applicant.
- 02
Whether the affidavit in support of the application contains material falsehoods that affect the merits of the application.
- 03
Whether the applicant is entitled to a stay of execution and costs.
Party arguments
- Applicant
- The applicant contended that he was never served with summons to file a defence or any court summons, which prevented him from participating in the proceedings. He only became aware of the suit when the respondent threatened to evict him. He alleged fraud on the part of the respondent and sought to have the matter heard on its merits.
- Respondent
- The respondent opposed the application, asserting that the applicant was duly represented by M/S Ambrose Tebyasa & Co. Advocates, who filed a joint Written Statement of Defence on 23rd June 2021 for both the applicant and Millennium Estates Developers Ltd. The respondent argued that the application lacked merit and was based on falsehoods.
05
Court’s reasoning
Legal principles
- 01
Besigye Kiiza v Museveni Yoweri Kaguta and Another [2001] UCSc 3
Affidavits containing falsehoods are unacceptable and render the application untenable.
- 02
General principle cited by the court
Truth is the only acceptable currency in a court of law; deliberate deception is not tolerated.
06
Ratio, limits and disposition
Ratio decidendi
The court found that the applicant's affidavit contained a fundamental falsehood, as the record showed that a Written Statement of Defence had been filed on his behalf, contradicting his claim of not being served or represented. This untruth rendered the application wholly unmerited. The court emphasized that affidavits must reflect the truth, and deliberate deception undermines the integrity of judicial proceedings. Consequently, the application to set aside the ex parte judgment and for stay of execution was dismissed with costs.
Obiter and limits
- Affidavits containing falsehoods reflect their maker's absolute lack of interest in the truth.
- Persons who go out of their way to deliberately deceive the court are not welcome.
Court disposition
application dismissed with costs
- The application is dismissed with costs.
Source and reliance status
High Court of Uganda
This page organises the available record for research. Confirm quotations, current status, and subsequent treatment against the official source before relying on the case.
Judgment reading view
Judgment text
The complete available source text.
High Court of Uganda
Judgment
THE REPUBLIC OF UGANDA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF UGANDA AT KAMPALA
(LAND DTVTSTON)
MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION No. 2156 OF 2024
(ARISING FROM clvlL SUIT No. 468 OF 2021)
tY
MUGERWA GEOFFREY-----------..-. APPLICANT
VERSUS
MUZZHA ZEDEKIAH---.-----------------. RES PONDENT
Before: Hon. Ladv Justice Olive Kazaarwe Mukwava
RULING
This Application is brought under section 98 of the Civil Procedure Act, Order 9 rule 27, Ordet S rule 10 and Order 52 rule 1 & 3 of the Civil Procedure Rules S.l 71-1 seeking for orders to set aside the ex parte judgmenvdecree of this Court in Civil Suit No 468 of 2021 against the Applicant, stay of execution of the decree and costs of this application.
Mr. l\4ugerwa Geoffrey's grounds for this application are contained in his affidavit in support. His complaint is that he was never served with summons to file a defence nor any court summons. A lapse which locked him out the proceedings. lt is only when he was contacted by the Respondent who threatened to evict him that he came to learn of 25 this suit.
This application is brought to remedy what the Applicant refers to as the Respondent's fraud and allow the matter to be heard on its merits.
The Respondent, Mr. l\,luzzha zedekiah, vehemently opposed the application He averred that Mr. MugeMa was duly represented by M/S Ambrose Tebyasa & co' Advocates' A
s joint Written Statement of Defence was filed on the 23'd June 2021 by the law firm' They represented both Mr. lvlugerwa and Millennium Estates Developers Ltd' the Defendants to the suit.
lfindthat,whereastheRespondentcontinuesatlengthfromthispointtolistotherreasonS why this application lacks merit' I find that the existence of Mr' Mugerwa's Written 10 Statement of Defence on this Court's record is more than sufficient to demonstrate that his affidavit contained a blatant lie. This fundamental untruth immediately rendered his application untenable and unmerited. Affidavits containing falsehoods reflect their maker's absolute lack of interest in the truth And since truth is the only acceptable currency in a Court of law persons who go out of their way to deliberately deceive the 15 Court are not welcome. See: Besigye Kiiza v Museveni Yoweri Kaguta and Another [2001] ucsc 3.
Accordingly, this application is dismissed with costs having been premised on an affidavit containing a fundamental falsehood'
tl
Olive Kazaarwe Mukwaya JUDGE 30th April 2025
Delivered by ECCMIS
2A
Case-aware research
Ask AI about this case
The judgment and available research above are public. New questions open in a separate private conversation grounded in this case.