Nakanjako & Another v Tamale & 3 Others
Nakanjako & Another v Tamale & 3 Others (Miscellaneous Application 124 of 2022) [2023] UGHC 403 (7 August 2023)
The court found that the affidavit in support of the application was invalid because the deponent did not appear before a Commissioner of Oaths as required by law. The evidence from cross-examination established that the deponent only signed the affidavit in her lawyer's office and did not meet the Commissioner of Oaths or the translator. The presence of signatures and seals on the affidavit did not cure this defect. The court held that compliance with the Oaths Act and the Commissioner of Oaths Rules is mandatory, and failure to do so renders the affidavit inadmissible. Since the application…
Source excerpt
- Affidavit Validity
- Commissioner Of Oaths Requirements
- Locus Standi
- Contempt Of Court