Wakilii

Tibebaga v Begumisa and 3 Others (Civil Application 18 of 2002)

Supreme Court · [2003] UGSC 51 · 2003 Application Dismissed ✦ AI-generated summary ↓ Download
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Application by notice of motion to a single Justice of the Supreme Court for extension of time within which to file written submissions in a pending civil appeal
Decision
Application for extension of time dismissed with costs

The full judgment

Read the complete, verbatim text of this judgment.

Sign in to read the full judgment

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

A single Justice held that section 99 of the Civil Procedure Act does not apply to applications before the Supreme Court, which are governed by rule 4 of the Supreme Court Rules 1996; under rule 4 the applicant bears the burden of showing sufficient reason for delay. Comparing the supporting affidavits with one sworn by the applicant's own staff, the court found the applicant's counsel's affidavits to be riddled with falsehood and, regarding the process server's conduct, to be hearsay contrary to rule 42(1). Stating the source of information could not cure the hearsay. With no valid affidavit, no sufficient reason for the delay was established and the application was dismissed with costs.

Facts

On 21 October 2002 the applicant was ordered by the Supreme Court to file written submissions in reply on or before 31 October 2002. He failed to do so and applied for an extension of time. The sole ground was that the fault lay with his counsel's clerk, who, instead of filing the submissions, travelled to Kabaale to serve summons in a separate suit (HCCS No. 594 of 2002) and returned after the time had expired. The respondents opposed the application, contending that the applicable law was rule 4 of the Supreme Court Rules rather than section 99 of the Civil Procedure Act, and that the supporting affidavits were defective for falsehood and hearsay. An affidavit by Moreen Nakato, a staff member of the applicant's counsel, stated that the relevant defendant had in fact been served in Kampala on 31 October 2002, contradicting counsel's account that the clerk had been delayed serving in Kabaale.

Issues

  1. Whether section 99 of the Civil Procedure Act or rule 4 of the Supreme Court Rules 1996 governs an application for extension of time before the Supreme Court.
  2. Whether the affidavits sworn in support of and in rejoinder to the application were incurably defective for containing falsehood.
  3. Whether those affidavits were hearsay and so failed to comply with rule 42(1) of the Supreme Court Rules.
  4. Whether the applicant established sufficient reason under rule 4 to justify the delay in filing his written submissions.

Orders

  • Application dismissed.
  • Costs of the application to the respondents.

Key headnotes

Civil Procedure — Extension of Time — Applicable Law Before the Supreme Court
Section 99 of the Civil Procedure Act does not apply to applications before the Supreme Court; such applications are governed by rule 4 of the Supreme Court Rules 1996, which places the burden on the applicant to show sufficient reason for the delay.
Evidence — Affidavits — Falsehood — Effect on Validity of Supporting Affidavit
An affidavit in support of an application that is riddled with falsehood is not a valid supporting affidavit, and an application unsupported by a valid affidavit cannot establish the facts on which it depends.
Evidence — Affidavits — Hearsay — Knowledge of Facts Under Rule 42(1)
Under rule 42(1) of the Supreme Court Rules an affidavit must be sworn by a person having knowledge of the facts; a deponent's account of what another person did or failed to do is hearsay and cannot be cured merely by stating the source of the information.

Legislation cited (9)

  • Civil Procedure Act s.99
  • Civil Procedure Act s.1(2)
  • Supreme Court Rules 1996 r.4
  • Supreme Court Rules 1996 r.41(1)(2)
  • Supreme Court Rules 1996 r.42(1)
  • Supreme Court Rules 1996 r.1(2)
  • Civil Procedure Rules Order 17 r.3(1)
  • Judicature Statute 1996 s.49(a)
  • Evidence Act s.2
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.