Uganda Case Law

Core Minerals Geologists Limited & 3 Others v Zhou

Core Minerals Geologists Limited & 3 Others v Zhou (Miscellaneous Application 1164 of 2024) [2024] UGCommC 340 (22 November 2024)

Court

Commercial Court of Uganda

Case number

Miscellaneous Application 1164 of 2024

Judge

Mutesi, J

The court found that the respondent's affidavit in reply was incurably defective as it was not notarized by a person authorized under Ugandan law, specifically Section 84(c) of the Evidence Act, and thus struck it off the record. The dispute in the main suit arose from the performance of an agency contract containing a binding arbitration clause, making it subject to arbitration under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act. Consequently, the High Court lacked jurisdiction to entertain, hear, or determine the suit. The application to dismiss Civil Suit No. 0915 of 2018 was allowed, and the suit…

Source excerpt

• Arbitration Agreement
• Jurisdiction Of High Court
• Competence Of Affidavit
• Agency Contract Disputes
• Striking Out Affidavit
• Dismissal For Want Of Jurisdiction

Lukyamuzi v Kajimba & Another

Lukyamuzi v Kajimba & Another (Miscellaneous Application 250 of 2022) [2023] UGHC 372 (6 June 2023)

Court

High Court of Uganda

Case number

Miscellaneous Application 250 of 2022

Judge

Katamba Nkwanga, J

The High Court dismissed an application to strike out a late affidavit in reply, holding that the delay was caused by counsel and should not be visited on the litigant.

• Affidavit Timeliness
• Service Of Process
• Striking Out Affidavit
• Ex Parte Proceedings
• Affidavit-timeliness
• Service-of-process

Emirates Safaris v The Development Analyst

Emirates Safaris v The Development Analyst (Miscellaneous Application 458 of 2022) [2022] UGCommC 178 (19 November 2022)

Court

Commercial Court of Uganda

Case number

Miscellaneous Application 458 of 2022

Judge

Anna B. Mugenyi, J

The court held that the strict timelines under Order 12 Rule 3 of the Civil Procedure Rules do not apply to affidavits in reply in miscellaneous applications, especially where the affidavit constitutes evidence rather than a pleading. The Respondent filed the affidavit before the hearing date, and the Applicant failed to demonstrate any prejudice that would result from its consideration. The court adopted the reasoning in Dr. Lam-Lagoro James v Muni University, emphasizing that affidavits in reply should be filed within a reasonable time before the hearing, and technicalities should not defea…

Source excerpt

• Affidavit Filing Timelines
• Striking Out Affidavit
• Prejudice To Party
• Application Of Order 12 Rule 3
• Technicalities Vs Merits

Dr. Wanzige Magoola v Makerere University Business School and Another

Dr. Wanzige Magoola v Makerere University Business School and Another (Civil Miscellaneous Application No. 417 of 2020) [2021] UGHCCD 107 (28 June 2021)

Court

HC: Civil Division (Uganda)

Case number

Civil Miscellaneous Application No. 417 of 2020

Judge

Boniface Wamala, J

The court held that affidavits commissioned by a person who has been struck off the roll of advocates are incurably defective and illegal, as such a person cannot act as a Commissioner for Oaths. This is a judicially noticed fact, supported by statutory provisions and binding case law. The defect is not curable by principles of substantive justice, and the application, being unsupported by valid affidavit evidence, is incompetent and must be struck out. The court distinguished between advocates without a practising certificate (who remain on the roll) and those struck off (who are not advocat…

Source excerpt

• Affidavit Defects
• Commissioner For Oaths
• Striking Out Affidavit
• Judicial Notice
• Substantive Justice
• Costs Award

KCB Bank (U) Ltd v Kalema

KCB Bank (U) Ltd v Kalema (Miscellaneous Application No. 704 of 2018) [2019] UGCommC 14 (22 March 2019)

Court

Commercial Court of Uganda

Case number

Miscellaneous Application No. 704 of 2018

The High Court struck out the supporting affidavit for failing to disclose the source of information, and dismissed the application with costs.

• Affidavit Defects
• Source Of Information
• Preliminary Objection
• Striking Out Affidavit
• Affidavit-defects
• Source-of-information

KCB Uganda Limited v Kalema

KCB Uganda Limited v Kalema (Miscellaneous Application No. 704 of 2018) [2019] UGCommC 230 (22 March 2019)

Court

Commercial Court of Uganda

Case number

Miscellaneous Application No. 704 of 2018

Judge

Wabwire, J

The court found that the affidavit in support of the application, sworn by counsel for the applicant, contained statements of fact in paragraph 5 for which the deponent could not have personal knowledge and failed to disclose the source of such information. This omission contravened Order 19 Rule 3 of the Civil Procedure Rules, which requires that affidavits based on information must disclose the source. The court distinguished between affidavits containing falsehoods, which may be cured by severance, and those that fail to comply with the law, such as non-disclosure of the source of informat…

Source excerpt

• Affidavit Defects
• Source Of Information
• Preliminary Objection
• Striking Out Affidavit