Wakilii

Achuk Gabriel v Eco Bank Uganda Limited and Others (Miscellaneous Cause No. 214 of 2024)

High Court · [2026] UGHCCD 105 · 2026 Application Dismissed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Application for enforcement of human rights under Article 50 of the Constitution and the Human Rights (Enforcement) Act
Decision
Application dismissed on preliminary objection without consideration of the merits

Observed later treatment

No later-treatment classification is recorded for this judgment.

Citator coverage is limited to judgments in the Wakilii corpus and source-matched treatment records. Absence of a signal is not an assertion that the case remains 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

The High Court dismissed the human rights enforcement application on a preliminary objection. The affidavit in support was struck out as defective because it was sworn by the general manager of a company not party to the proceedings, rather than by the applicant himself, and the deponent stated facts without disclosing the source of his information. The court held that such defects were not mere technicalities that could be overlooked under section 6(5) of the Human Rights (Enforcement) Act.

Outcome

Application dismissed on preliminary objection without consideration of the merits

Facts

The applicant, a director and shareholder of Tamam Brokerage Services Limited, was arrested and detained by police on 11 October 2024 after attempting to withdraw funds from the company's account at Eco Bank Uganda Limited. The bank had restricted the account following information from Eco Bank South Sudan that fraudulent funds totalling USD 17,500 had been deposited into the account. The applicant had already withdrawn USD 10,000 on 7 October 2024. He was detained at the bank premises for over two hours, then transferred to Wandegeya Police Station where he was held beyond 48 hours without being produced in court. Police refused him bond on instructions from the bank unless he refunded the withdrawn money. The applicant filed a human rights enforcement application seeking declarations that his arrest and detention violated his constitutional rights and claiming compensation of UGX 100 million and punitive damages of UGX 20 million. The affidavit in support was sworn by Nyuon Thikuiy Gang Lual, the general manager of Tamam Brokerage Services Limited, not by the applicant himself.

Issues

  1. Whether the affidavit in support of the application was defective for being sworn by a person other than the applicant without proper authority.
  2. Whether the deponent had personal knowledge of the facts deposed to in the affidavit.
  3. Whether the defects in the affidavit could be overlooked as mere technicalities under section 6(5) of the Human Rights (Enforcement) Act.

Orders

  • The affidavit in support of the application is struck out.
  • The application is dismissed.
  • Each party to bear their own costs.

Rules and key headnotes

Civil Procedure — Affidavits — Requirements for Valid Affidavit — Personal Knowledge and Authority
An affidavit in support of an application must be sworn by the applicant or by a person with proper authority to swear on behalf of the applicant. Where an affidavit is sworn by a person claiming to act as general manager of a company that is not a party to the proceedings, without disclosing written authorization from the applicant, the affidavit is defective and incompetent.
Civil Procedure — Affidavits — Personal Knowledge Requirement — Order 19 Rule 3 Civil Procedure Rules
Under Order 19 Rule 3 of the Civil Procedure Rules, affidavits must be confined to such facts as the deponent is able to prove of his or her own knowledge, except on interlocutory applications where statements of belief may be admitted. Where a deponent states facts without disclosing the source of information, the court cannot rely on such statements.
Human Rights — Enforcement — Section 6(5) Human Rights (Enforcement) Act — Limits on Overlooking Procedural Defects
While section 6(5) of the Human Rights (Enforcement) Act provides that no suit shall be rejected merely for failure to comply with any procedure, form or technicality, this provision does not permit the court to overlook defects that go to the substance of the application. A defective affidavit sworn by a person without proper authority and without personal knowledge of the facts is a substantive defect, not a mere technicality.
Human Rights — Enforcement — Article 50 Constitution — Who May Bring Proceedings
Article 50(2) of the Constitution and section 3(2) of the Human Rights (Enforcement) Act permit a person to bring proceedings on behalf of another who cannot act in their own name. However, where an applicant is in police custody but has access to counsel and is able to see his lawyer, there is nothing preventing the applicant from deponing the affidavit himself, and this does not fall within the ambit of persons who cannot act in their own name under Article 50.

Legislation cited (18)

Cases cited (5)

  • Timothy Kyatigonza and 12 Others v Damalie Mukasa and Another (Miscellaneous Application No. 649 of 2023)
  • Wasswa Kittata Kibirige and Another v Ssebiso Peter (Miscellaneous Application No. 2716 of 2023)
  • MHK Engineering Services (U) Ltd v Macdowell Ltd (Miscellaneous Application No. 825 of 2018)
  • Allen Isingoma v Alex Muhairwe and 2 Others (Criminal Case No. 39 of 1992)
  • Uganda Journalists Association and Others v Attorney General and Others (Miscellaneous Cause No. 64 of 2021)

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

The original judgment as reported. Read the original PDF before relying on any passage.

Achuk Gabriel v Eco Bank Uganda Limited and Others (Miscellaneous Cause No. 214 of 2024) [2026] UGHCCD 105 (1 April 2026)
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.