Share
Uganda Corporation Creameries and Another v Reamaton Limited (Civil Application No. 44/98) [1998] UGCA 63 (3 December 1998)
- Citation
- [1998] UGCA 63
- Status
- Judgment
- Jurisdiction
- Uganda
- Court
- Court of Appeal of Uganda
- Panel
- Engwau, JA
- Case number
- Civil Application No. 44/98
- Language
- English
More details
- Court
- Court of Appeal of Uganda
- Panel
- Engwau, JA
- Case number
- Civil Application No. 44/98
- Language
- English
On this page
Professional case brief
Research organized from the available case record
01
Holding and result
The court found that the paragraphs complained of in the affidavits expressed the deponent's grounds of belief rather than the source of information. When the affidavits are considered as a whole, the statements do not contravene Order 17 rule 3(1) of the Civil Procedure Rules. The preliminary objection was therefore overruled, and the affidavits were allowed to stand.
Court disposition
preliminary objection overruled
Orders
- The preliminary objection is overruled.
- The affidavits in question are allowed to stand.
02
Material facts
Parties
Uganda Corporation Creameries & Anor.
Applicant Counsel: Mr. ByenkyaReamaton Ltd.
Respondent Counsel: Mr. Babigumira03
Procedural history
Posture
Civil Application / Preliminary Objection Ruling
04
Questions and positions
Legal issues
- 01
Whether the deponent's failure to disclose the source of information in the affidavits contravenes Order 17 rule 3(1) of the Civil Procedure Rules.
- 02
Whether the paragraphs in the affidavits should be struck out for not stating the source of information.
Party arguments
- Applicant
- Counsel for the applicants argued that the objection was misconceived and premature. He submitted that the deponent in the questioned paragraphs merely stated her grounds of belief, not the source of information, and that the affidavits provide necessary background facts for showing sufficient cause for extension of time. Therefore, the paragraphs do not offend Order 17 rule 3(1) of the Civil Procedure Rules.
- Respondent
- Counsel for the respondent contended that the paragraphs in the affidavits relate to service of a letter requesting a copy of the record of proceedings. The deponent failed to serve the letter and retain proof of service, and was neither a process server nor court clerk. Failure to disclose the source of information was argued to offend Order 17 rule 3(1) of the Civil Procedure Rules.
05
Court’s reasoning
Legal principles
- 01
Order 17 rule 3(1) of the Civil Procedure Rules
Affidavit evidence must disclose the source of information when statements are not based on the deponent's own knowledge.
- 02
Judicial interpretation
Paragraphs in affidavits should not be treated in isolation but considered in the context of the whole affidavit.
06
Ratio, limits and disposition
Ratio decidendi
The court found that the paragraphs complained of in the affidavits expressed the deponent's grounds of belief rather than the source of information. When the affidavits are considered as a whole, the statements do not contravene Order 17 rule 3(1) of the Civil Procedure Rules. The preliminary objection was therefore overruled, and the affidavits were allowed to stand.
Obiter and limits
- Affidavits should be read in their entirety and not dissected paragraph by paragraph for technical faults.
- Premature objections to affidavit content may be dismissed if the overall context supports compliance with procedural rules.
Court disposition
preliminary objection overruled
- The preliminary objection is overruled.
- The affidavits in question are allowed to stand.
Source and reliance status
Court of Appeal 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.
Court of Appeal of Uganda
Judgment
TIIE REPT'BLIC OF UGANDA
IN THE COURT OF APPEAIJ OF UGA. I{DA I
- AT KAIIPALA
CIVIIJ APPIJICATION NO. 44,/98
UGANDA CORPORATTON CREAMERIES & ANOR. r 3:::::: VERSUS APPL ICANTS
REAMATON LTD. :3::::3:
RES PONDE}TT
CORA.}I : IION. MR. ,fIrSTrCE S. G. ENGWAU, ,rA. (SingLe ,rudge)
COURT:
The preliminary point of objection j.s entered on what Ehe deponent, Blaise Namwezi, stated in paragraphs 4, !2 and 14/15 of the main and supplementary affidavits in support of Notice of Mot ion .
It is t.he conEenEion of Mr. Babigumira learned counsel for respondenE, thats Ehose paragraphs relate Eo the service of a copy of the fetter requesting for a copy of the record of proceedings. The deponent failed to serve EhaE. lett.er and afso failed to retain proof of service. In t.he c j- rcumst.ances. the deponenE should have stated the source of her informatsion as she was neiEher a process - server/court clerk who might have effected service. In his view failure to disclose her source of information offended O.17 r.3(1) of Civil Procedure Rules.
Mr. Byenkya, objection on t.he premature in that learned counsel for Ehe applicants opposed Ehe grounds that it. was misconceived and also the deponent in those paragraphs complained or
had merely stated her grounds of belief when you look at the two affidavits as a whole. Learned counsel submitted therefore that paragraphs complained of did not offend $0.17 \text{ r.3(1)}$ of Civil Procedure Rules.
Mr. Byenkya further argued that the objection is premature because the affidavits in question give defined background of the facts of the record of proceedings which facts the applicants are going to rely upon when it comes to showing sufficient cause for the extension of time in the matter.
I have looked at the affidavits in question very carefully and it is my humble view that paragraphs complained of should not be treated in isolation. When the whole affidavits are looked at in details, I am of the view that the deponent had expressed her grounds of belief rather than source of her information.
In the result, I find that the objection raised here does not contravene 0.17 r.3(1) of Civil Procedure Rules. In other words the objection is hereof overruled.
> S. G. ENGWAU JUSTICE OF APPEAL 3.12.98.
> > $\mathcal{L}$
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.