How to swear a statutory declaration in Uganda
In brief
A statutory declaration is a solemn written statement of facts declared to be true, made under the Statutory Declarations Act, Cap. 24, before a commissioner for oaths, a judge, a magistrate, a justice of the peace, the Registrar, or a notary public (s.5). Unlike an affidavit, it is not sworn for use in court proceedings — s.2 restricts affidavits to specific purposes, and s.3 makes a statutory declaration the vehicle for every other case where a person wants to depone to a fact. It must be in the prescribed form (s.4), the declarant pays a fee equal to the affidavit fee (s.8), and knowingly making a false declaration is an offence punishable by up to 100 currency points or 3 years' imprisonment, or both (s.7). A declaration taken outside Uganda is only admissible in evidence once registered under the Registration of Documents Act (s.6) — that registration requirement, not an apostille regime, is the Act's own mechanism for a declaration made abroad.
1. At a glance
What this note covers
A statutory declaration is Uganda's general-purpose solemn written statement — used everywhere an affidavit is not the required instrument, from confirming a change of name to supporting an application that calls for a formal statement of fact outside litigation. It is made before a commissioner for oaths (or another authorised officer), in a prescribed form, for the same fee as an affidavit, and knowingly declaring something false is a real criminal offence. This note walks through when to use one, how to make it correctly, and the one commonly-misunderstood point about using a declaration abroad.
It is written for anyone who needs to make a formal written statement of fact outside a court proceeding — an individual applying for a change of name, confirming a relationship or identity detail, or supporting an official application — and for the advocates and commissioners for oaths who prepare and attest such declarations. It does not cover an affidavit sworn for use in litigation (a separate instrument governed by s.2 of the Act and the ordinary rules of civil and criminal procedure), which needs its own guide.
Statutory references are to the Statutory Declarations Act, Cap. 24 (2023 Revised Edition). That chapter number, along with the Commissioners for Oaths (Advocates) Act, Cap. 5, and the Oaths Act, Cap. 21, all carry the same standing caveat as elsewhere in this cluster: whether any of them changed under the July 2024 seventh-edition renumbering of the Laws of Uganda has not been independently confirmed.
2. Why Uganda has two parallel solemn-statement instruments
It can look odd, at first, that Uganda maintains two separate instruments for essentially the same function — solemnly stating facts to be true — rather than one. The structural answer sits in ss.2 and 3 of the Act read together: s.2 restricts when an affidavit may be sworn (principally, for use in judicial proceedings and a defined set of other specific purposes), and s.3 then makes the statutory declaration the residual, general-purpose vehicle for 'every case to which section 2 does not apply.'
In practice, this means the affidavit is the litigation instrument, kept tightly tied to court process, while the statutory declaration is the everyday instrument for the much larger universe of non-judicial situations where some other law, institution or foreign authority simply wants a formal, solemnly-attested statement of fact.
3. When a statutory declaration is the right instrument
The most common real-world uses of a Ugandan statutory declaration are non-judicial by nature: a change-of-name declaration, confirming identity particulars for a government or institutional application, confirming a family relationship where no birth or marriage record is available, or supporting an application to a foreign authority or institution that itself requires a solemn declaration as a matter of its own process rather than Ugandan court process.
The dividing line is purpose, not solemnity
The dividing line is not the seriousness of the statement — a statutory declaration is just as solemn and just as capable of criminal exposure for falsity as an affidavit. The dividing line is whether the purpose falls inside s.2's affidavit-specific cases or outside them. When in doubt, check what the receiving institution or court actually requires — many forms specify one or the other by name.
4. Who can take a statutory declaration
Section 5 lists who may take and receive a statutory declaration: a judge, the Registrar, a magistrate, a justice of the peace, a notary public, and any commissioner for oaths — provided the declarant makes it voluntarily before them, and the person taking it certifies it under their own signature. In everyday practice, the commissioner for oaths is the officer most people will actually use, since commissioners are widely available through the legal profession.
Commissioners for Oaths (Advocates) Act, Cap. 5
The Chief Justice appoints practising advocates of at least 2 years' standing, certified fit and proper by two other advocates, as commissioners for oaths (s.1); the appointment is gazetted and terminates automatically if the holder ceases to practise. Magistrates and the Chief Registrar of the High Court hold the powers of a commissioner virtute officii — by virtue of their office — without needing a separate appointment (s.3). A commissioner may administer oaths and take affidavits for any court or matter in Uganda, subject to a conflict-of-interest bar where they have a personal interest in the matter (s.4(1)) — and s.4(2) expressly extends that same power to taking statutory declarations under the Act, which is the direct statutory link that makes an ordinary advocate-commissioner competent to attest a declaration at all.
The jurat's place and date must be genuine
The commissioner must genuinely state the true place and date in the jurat (Cap. 5, s.5) — this is not a formality to skip. A jurat that misstates where or when the declaration was actually made undermines the very solemnity the instrument depends on, and anyone unlawfully holding themselves out as a commissioner faces a specific statutory penalty (s.6).
5. Form and procedure: making the declaration
Section 4 requires a statutory declaration to be in the form specified in Schedule 2 to the Act — a prescribed structure the declarant and the commissioner should follow rather than improvise. In substance, the declarant states, in the first person, the facts they solemnly and sincerely declare to be true, and the person taking the declaration certifies under their own signature that it was made voluntarily before them.
Where the declarant is illiterate, blind, or otherwise unable to read the document for themselves, the Oaths Act, Cap. 21's Schedule 1 supplies the concrete form-level mechanism: it prescribes specific jurat and oath wording for such cases (including Form B, for a blind or illiterate deponent), under which the commissioner records that the document was read over and explained to the declarant before it was made. This is a distinct, form-level mechanism from the Illiterates Protection Act discussed in the companion power-of-attorney note, though it serves a closely analogous purpose — protecting a declarant who cannot read the document for themselves from being bound by contents they never actually understood.
6. Declarations made outside Uganda — the real statutory mechanism
This is the point where practice and the statute text most commonly diverge, and it is worth correcting directly. Section 6 of the Act governs statutory declarations taken outside Uganda, and its actual rule is precise: 'a statutory declaration taken outside Uganda under this section shall not be admissible in evidence unless it is registered with the registrar of documents under the Registration of Documents Act.' The Act's own mechanism for a declaration made abroad, in other words, is registration under Cap. 81 — not an apostille.
Section 6 means registration, not apostille
Do not tell a client that the Statutory Declarations Act itself provides for an apostille. Its own admissibility mechanism for a declaration made outside Uganda is registration under the Registration of Documents Act (s.6). Apostille or consular authentication — commonly needed where a Ugandan document must be recognised by a foreign authority, via Uganda's Ministry of Foreign Affairs — is a separate practical layer that sits alongside, not inside, the Cap. 24 registration requirement, and Uganda's status under the Hague Apostille Convention was not independently confirmed for this note.
In practice, a declarant needing a document to be usable both in Uganda (as admissible evidence) and abroad (for a foreign authority's own purposes) should expect to satisfy two separate requirements: s.6 registration under the Registration of Documents Act for Ugandan admissibility, and whatever authentication or apostille process the destination country itself demands, independently of Cap. 24.
7. How the courts have treated statutory declarations — an honest gap
No reported Ugandan case addressing the evidentiary weight or admissibility of a statutory declaration specifically, and no case where a statutory declaration was itself found false or perjurious as such, was located in the research for this note. That should be stated plainly rather than papered over with an unrelated authority.
A perjury prosecution reported as Uganda v Buwule (Hct-00-cr-cn-0031-2007, [2012] UGHC 172) arose from false testimony in an earlier court proceeding, on the material available for this note's research — it concerns testimonial perjury in a court case, not a false statutory declaration specifically, and should not be cited as a statutory-declarations authority without a direct read of the full judgment confirming what kind of sworn statement was actually at issue.
What does exist, and is genuinely useful by close analogy, is a well-developed line of authority on the related Illiterates Protection Act — relevant wherever a statutory declaration is made by a declarant who cannot read or write. Both cases below are Illiterates Protection Act authorities, not statutory-declarations cases as such, but the underlying principle — a formality-defective document cannot bind a person who never genuinely understood it — applies with equal logical force to a statutory declaration made by an illiterate declarant.
Kasaala Growers Co-operative Society v Kakooza & Anor
Leading Supreme Court authority (Illiterates Protection Act, not statutory declarations as such): a document that does not comply with the Illiterates Protection Act is inadmissible, and the signatory cannot be said to own or be bound by its contents. Reaffirmed as recently as 2025 in Ngugi Richard v Tumushiime Sam.
Stanbic Bank (U) Ltd v Ssenyonjo Moses
Also an Illiterates Protection Act authority, not a statutory-declarations case: held a lease agreement illegal and unenforceable where illiterate signatories (schooled only to primary 3/4) were not shown to understand the document. Clarifies that 'illiterate' means unable to read or write in the relevant language, and places the burden on the document's writer or witness to prove genuine understanding.
These cases are analogous, not on point — say so
Kasaala Growers and Stanbic v Ssenyonjo are not statutory-declarations cases — say so plainly rather than presenting them as if they were. They are cited here only for the closely analogous Illiterates Protection Act principle, which applies with equal logical force to a statutory declaration made by an illiterate declarant, but no reported case has squarely applied that principle to a statutory declaration as such.
8. Consequences of getting it wrong
The clearest and most serious consequence is the criminal offence in s.7: a person who utters or presents as true a statutory declaration known to be false commits an offence and is liable, on conviction, to a fine not exceeding 100 currency points (UGX 2,000,000) or imprisonment for a term not exceeding 3 years, or both. This is a genuine, specific criminal exposure distinct from — though related in spirit to — the general Penal Code perjury regime that applies to false testimony in court proceedings.
Beyond the criminal exposure, using the wrong instrument (an affidavit where a declaration was required, or vice versa) risks straightforward rejection by the receiving institution or court — a procedural inconvenience rather than a substantive wrong, but one that can cause real delay in a time-sensitive application (a passport renewal, a name-change deadline, a foreign visa or immigration process).
Where the declaration is made abroad and the s.6 registration step is skipped, the practical consequence is that the declaration is simply not admissible in evidence in Uganda — a defect that surfaces at exactly the wrong moment, typically when the document is finally needed in a Ugandan proceeding or before a Ugandan authority.
9. Practical guidance and drafting tips
State only what the declarant actually knows
Draft the declaration in the declarant's own voice, stating only facts genuinely within their personal knowledge — a declaration that recites facts the declarant could not actually know first-hand invites exactly the s.7 exposure it is meant to avoid, and undermines the document's credibility with the receiving institution regardless.
Match the instrument to what is actually asked for
Confirm the receiving institution's exact requirement before drafting — many application forms specify 'affidavit' or 'statutory declaration' by name, and using the wrong one risks straightforward rejection regardless of the document's substantive accuracy.
Use the prescribed jurat for a declarant who cannot read
For a declarant who is illiterate, blind, or otherwise unable to read the document, use the Oaths Act's own prescribed jurat form for such deponents (Schedule 1, e.g. Form B) rather than the ordinary jurat — it builds in the commissioner's own record that the document was read over and explained before it was made, protecting both the declarant and anyone later relying on the document.
10. Common pitfalls
- Using a statutory declaration for a matter that actually requires a sworn affidavit under s.2, or vice versa.
- Skipping the proper attestation before a person authorised under s.5, or departing from the Schedule 2 prescribed form.
- Assuming apostille or foreign authentication flows from the Statutory Declarations Act itself — the Act's own mechanism for a declaration made abroad (s.6) is registration under the Registration of Documents Act, not apostille.
- Declaring facts not genuinely within the declarant's own knowledge, or knowingly declaring something false — an offence under s.7.
- Overstating the case-law support for statutory declarations by citing the Illiterates Protection Act cases (Kasaala Growers, Stanbic v Ssenyonjo) as if they were statutory-declaration authority — they are closely analogous, not directly on point.
11. Grey areas and points to confirm
No reported Ugandan case on the evidentiary weight or admissibility of a statutory declaration specifically was located, and no case where a statutory declaration was itself found false or perjurious as such was located — state this honestly rather than relying on the Illiterates Protection Act line of authority (which is genuinely analogous, but not squarely on point) or on Uganda v Buwule (which appears, on the material reviewed, to concern testimonial perjury rather than a false statutory declaration).
The precise text of s.2's affidavit-restriction exceptions list, and the full verbatim wording of ss.3 and 5, were not completely captured in this cluster's research (the source rendering collapsed some numbered sub-lists) — before publication or before quoting s.2's exceptions verbatim in a filing, do one more direct read of the consolidated Act text to confirm precise wording. Confidence is high on ss.1, 4, 6, 7, 8 and 9.
The Oaths Act's numbered operative section governing oaths and the jurat generally (distinct from the Schedule forms) was not independently confirmed in this cluster's research — only the Schedules (prescribed forms) were verified directly. If a specific numbered section of the Oaths Act needs to be cited for the jurat generally, verify it against the Act's front sections before publication.
The Commissioners for Oaths (Advocates) Act text used for this note was the version consolidated to 31 December 2000; the 'as at 31 December 2023' version was not separately fetched to confirm no later amendment exists (none surfaced in the searches conducted, but this is an absence-of-evidence finding, not a guarantee).
Uganda's status under the Hague Apostille Convention was not independently verified for this note — before advising a client on the exact process for using a Ugandan statutory declaration abroad, confirm current practice with Uganda's Ministry of Foreign Affairs (or the relevant foreign mission), since the authentication layer sits outside the Statutory Declarations Act itself.
The same 7th Revised Edition chapter-renumbering risk flagged throughout this cluster applies to Cap. 24, Cap. 5 and Cap. 21 alike — none of their post-July-2024 chapter numbers has been independently confirmed.
12. Practitioner checklist
- Confirm a statutory declaration (not an affidavit) is the right instrument for the purpose (ss.2-3).
- Draft in the Schedule 2 form, in the declarant's own voice, stating only facts within their personal knowledge (s.4).
- Take it before a person authorised under s.5 (commissioner for oaths, judge, magistrate, justice of the peace, Registrar, or notary public for use abroad).
- If the declarant is illiterate or cannot read the document, use the Oaths Act's prescribed jurat for such deponents.
- Pay the prescribed fee (the same as the affidavit fee, s.8).
- For use outside Uganda, register the declaration under the Registration of Documents Act as s.6 requires, and separately check the destination country's own authentication/apostille requirement.
- Never let a client declare a fact they do not genuinely know, or one they know to be false — s.7's penalty is real.
13. Sources and further verification
Every statutory reference in this note is to the 2023 Revised Edition of the Laws of Uganda, cross-checked against the Statutory Declarations Act, the Commissioners for Oaths (Advocates) Act, and the Oaths Act consolidations. Confirm the precise text of ss.2, 3 and 5 directly before quoting them verbatim in a filing (see grey areas).
- Statutory Declarations Act, Cap. 24 (2023 Revision) — ss.1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9.
- Commissioners for Oaths (Advocates) Act, Cap. 5 — ss.1, 3, 4, 5, 6.
- Oaths Act, Cap. 21 — Schedule 1 (prescribed jurat and oath forms, including for illiterate/blind deponents).
- Registration of Documents Act, Cap. 81 — the registration mechanism a declaration taken outside Uganda must satisfy under s.6.
- Statutory text verified against the consolidated Laws of Uganda as at 31 December 2023. Sourced from the Uganda Legal Information Institute (ulii.org).
Next currentness review: 17 August 2027.
This note is a practitioner orientation, not legal advice, and does not create an advocate–client relationship. Ugandan law changes and chapter and section numbers were revised in the 2023 Laws of Uganda. Verify every statute, rule and authority against the current primary source — and the specific facts of your matter — before filing or relying on it.