Wakilii

Paul K. Ssemwogerere & Anor v Attorney General (Constitutional Petition No. 3 of 1999)

Constitutional Court · [2001] UGCC 2 · 2001 Petition Granted ✦ AI-generated summary ↓ Download
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Constitutional petition challenging the validity of an Act of Parliament under article 137 of the Constitution
Decision
Petition succeeded; declarations and remedies sought granted

The full judgment

Read the complete, verbatim text of this judgment.

Sign in to read the full judgment
Cited — treatment unverified cited in 16 (treatment unverified) Derived from citing cases in the Wakilii corpus — not an assertion that this case is good law.

AI-generated summary. This summary was generated by AI from the full text of the judgment. It may contain errors or omissions — always read the source judgment before relying on it.

Holding

In a concurring judgment, Berko JA held that a constitutional petition is not an interlocutory proceeding, so affidavits supporting or opposing it must be confined to facts within the deponent's personal knowledge under Order 17 rule 3(1) of the Civil Procedure Rules; affidavits based on information and belief are inadmissible hearsay. The respondent's supplementary affidavit relied on information from members of Parliament and the 'omnibus affidavit' bore unauthenticated erasures, rendering both unusable. The Hansard showed the true position. He agreed the petition should succeed and would grant the declarations and remedies sought, with costs to the petitioners and a certificate for two advocates.

Facts

The petitioners challenged the validity of the Referendum and Other Provisions Act 1999, contending that it was passed by Parliament on 1 July 1999 without the requisite quorum. In answer, the respondent relied on a supplementary affidavit of Hon. Rebecca Kadaga, who deposed that there was quorum and that she had spoken to some 102 members of Parliament who confirmed their presence, and on an 'omnibus affidavit' purportedly sworn by members of Parliament asserting that quorum existed. Berko JA found that Kadaga's affidavit rested on information given to her by others and was hearsay, and that the omnibus affidavit was defective because names had been erased without authentication by the commissioner for oaths. The Hansard record reflected the actual position regarding quorum.

Issues

  1. Whether affidavits filed in support of or in answer to a constitutional petition may be based on information and belief rather than the deponent's personal knowledge.
  2. Whether the affidavits relied on by the respondent were admissible to prove that there was quorum in Parliament when the Referendum and Other Provisions Act 1999 was passed.
  3. Whether the petition challenging the enactment of the Referendum and Other Provisions Act 1999 should succeed.

Orders

  • The declarations and remedies sought in the petition are granted.
  • The petitioners are awarded the costs of the petition with a certificate for two advocates.

Key headnotes

Affidavits — Confinement to Personal Knowledge — Exception for Interlocutory Applications
Under Order 17 rule 3(1) of the Civil Procedure Rules, an affidavit must be confined to facts the deponent can prove of his own knowledge; statements of belief are admissible only in interlocutory applications where the grounds of belief are stated.
Constitutional Petitions — Nature of Proceedings — Affidavit Evidence
A constitutional petition is not an interlocutory application, so an affidavit in support of or against it must be restricted to facts within the deponent's personal knowledge and may not be founded on information and belief.
Affidavits — Hearsay — Information Supplied by Third Parties
An affidavit based on information supplied by other persons is hearsay and is inadmissible to support a constitutional petition; even in interlocutory matters that finally decide the rights of parties, evidence on information and belief is not admissible.
Affidavits — Erasures and Alterations — Authentication by Commissioner for Oaths
Where an affidavit contains erasures or alterations that have not been authenticated by the initials of the commissioner for oaths, whether made before or after commissioning, the affidavit cannot be used in court.

Legislation cited (3)

  • Civil Procedure Rules Order 17 rule 3(1)
  • Constitution of Uganda article 137
  • Referendum and Other Provisions Act 1999

Cases cited (4)

  • Nassanand & Sons (Uganda) Ltd. v East African Records Ltd (1959) EA 360
  • Standard Goods Corporation Ltd v Harakhachand Nathu & Co. (1950) 17 EA 99
  • Aristella Kabwinukya v John Kasiggwa, (1978) HCB
  • Gilbert v Endean 9 Ch. 259 cited at page 1404 in Sarkar's Law of Evidence 13th Edition
Source: this page presents Wakilii’s issue analysis and metadata for a publicly reported Ugandan judgment. Any AI-generated summary is marked as such. Judgment text is sourced from the Uganda Legal Information Institute (ulii.org). Wakilii is not affiliated with ULII.