Wakilii

Administrator General v Kitatta & Ors (Ma No. 1066 of 2012)

High Court · [2013] UGHCLD 53 · 2013 Application Dismissed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Application to review and set aside order dismissing civil suit arising from filing of unsworn witness statements
Decision
Application dismissed; earlier dismissal of civil suit stands

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

Application dismissed. Court declined to set aside earlier order dismissing civil suit. The suit was dismissed not because of counsel's inadvertence in filing unsworn witness statements contrary to court directives, but because unsworn statements did not constitute credible admissible evidence under the Oaths Act section 10. Plaintiffs failed to discharge their burden of proof. The exercise of inherent powers under section 33 of the Judicature Act and section 98 of the Civil Procedure Act must be based on common sense and justice.

Outcome

Application dismissed; earlier dismissal of civil suit stands

Facts

The applicants had filed Civil Suit No. 311 of 2011 relating to land. After obtaining default judgment, the High Court directed them to file sworn witness statements for ex parte hearing. Plaintiffs' counsel filed unsworn witness statements instead. The court dismissed the suit on the ground that unsworn witness statements were not credible admissible evidence, and also noted that filing unsworn statements contrary to court directives was an abuse of process. The applicants then brought this application under section 33 of the Judicature Act and section 98 of the Civil Procedure Act, seeking to set aside the dismissal order, arguing it resulted from counsel's inadvertence which should not be visited upon the clients.

Issues

  1. Whether the court should exercise its discretion under section 33 of the Judicature Act and section 98 of the Civil Procedure Act to set aside the order dismissing the suit.
  2. Whether the inadvertence of counsel in filing unsworn witness statements is sufficient ground to review and set aside the dismissal order.

Orders

  • Application dismissed.
  • Order dismissing Civil Suit No. 311 of 2011 not set aside.

Rules and key headnotes

Evidence — Admissibility — Unsworn Statements — Effect on Burden of Proof
No judgment shall be given upon the uncorroborated evidence of a person who gives evidence without oath or affirmation under section 10 of the Oaths Act. Unsworn witness statements are not admissible evidence and plaintiffs who rely on them fail to discharge their burden of proof.
Civil Procedure — Ex Parte Proceedings — Burden of Proof
Even where a suit proceeds ex parte, the burden to prove a case to the requisite standard remains on the plaintiff.
Civil Procedure — Inherent Powers — Exercise of Discretion
The exercise of inherent powers under section 33 of the Judicature Act and section 98 of the Civil Procedure Act is a matter within the discretion of the court. The court must act judiciously and according to settled principles, and the decision must be based upon common sense and justice having regard to all circumstances of the case.

Legislation cited (6)

Cases cited (2)

  • Yoswa Kityo v Eriya Kaddu [1982] HCB 58
  • Standard Chartered Bank of Uganda v Ben Kavuya & Barclays Bank Ltd [2006] HCB Vol. 1 134

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Administrator General v Kitatta & Ors (Ma No. 1066 of 2012) [2013] UGHCLD 53 (6 June 2013)
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.