Uganda Case Law

Luyenjje Najjimu and Others v Uganda

Luyenjje Najjimu and Others v Uganda (Criminal Applications No. 10, 12 & 13 of 2023) [2024] UGHCICD 18 (23 April 2024)

Court

HC: International Crimes Division (Uganda)

Case number

Criminal Applications No. 10, 12 & 13 of 2023

Judge

Okalany, J

The court held that the application was improperly before it because the applicants sued 'Uganda', a non-existent party in civil proceedings, instead of the Attorney General. This substantive defect could not be cured by Section 6(5) of the Human Rights (Enforcement) Act, which only addresses procedural or technical defects. Furthermore, the applicants’ affidavits were found to be incurably defective as they were not properly affirmed before a commissioner for oaths using the prescribed statutory language, rendering them inadmissible. Even if these defects were overlooked, the applicants fail…

Source excerpt

• Torture And Inhuman Treatment
• Enforcement Of Human Rights
• Vicarious Liability Of State
• Affidavit Procedure
• Burden Of Proof
• Procedural Defects

Alli Maishalla and 5 Others v Basheza (Land Civil Suit 5 of 2022)

Alli Maishalla and 5 Others v Basheza (Land Civil Suit 5 of 2022) [2023] UGHCLD 320 (17 July 2023)

Court

HC: Land Division (Uganda)

Case number

Land Civil Suit 5 of 2022

Judge

Kawesa, J

The High Court struck out a late reply affidavit filed without leave, heard the motion as unopposed, and allowed revision, releasing the land from attachment.

• Revision Of Magistrate Decision
• Objector Proceedings
• Vacant Possession
• Affidavit Procedure
• Civil-procedure
• Land-law

Mabirizi v Attorney General

Mabirizi v Attorney General (Miscellaneous Application 7 of 2018) [2018] UGSC 55 (14 December 2018)

Court

Supreme Court of Uganda

Case number

Miscellaneous Application 7 of 2018

The Supreme Court found that the affidavits filed by the applicant were prolix, argumentative, and non-compliant with Order 19 Rule 3 of the Civil Procedure Rules, which requires affidavits to be confined to facts within the deponent's knowledge and not to contain arguments or conjecture. The Court also held that while an undated affidavit is a curable defect, the applicant suffered no prejudice from the respondent's substitution of a dated affidavit. Furthermore, the Court determined that the application to summon the Speaker of Parliament was pre-emptive of issues already framed for determi…

Source excerpt

• Affidavit Procedure
• Additional Evidence
• Court Process Abuse
• Parliamentary Immunity