Wakilii

Angelina Kagere Lubowa and Others v Paul Bwanika Mukasa (Miscellaneous Application 690 of 2025)

High Court · [2025] UGHCFD 124 · 2025 Preliminary Objection Dismissed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Application for review of High Court decision striking off affidavit in reply and setting aside temporary injunction
Decision
Preliminary objection dismissed; matter to proceed to hearing on merits after rectification of affidavit

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 ruled on a preliminary objection that an affidavit sworn before a UK notary public but erroneously stating it was sworn in Kampala could be rectified to reflect the correct place of swearing. The court held that the typing error should not vitiate the affidavit in view of Article 126(2)(e) of the Constitution, which requires substantive justice without undue regard to technicalities. The court directed that once rectification is done, the application for review would be determined on its merits.

Outcome

Preliminary objection dismissed; matter to proceed to hearing on merits after rectification of affidavit

Facts

The applicants sought review of a High Court decision dated 17 December 2024 which struck off the 1st applicant's affidavit in reply for being filed out of time and set aside a temporary injunction. The applicants contended that the court erred because it had granted them an extension of time on 7 November 2024 to file the affidavit in reply by 11 November 2024, which they complied with. The respondent raised a preliminary objection that the applicant's affidavit in support of the review application was fatally defective because it stated it was sworn in Kampala but bore the commission of a UK notary public who lacked jurisdiction to administer oaths in Uganda. The applicant explained this was a typing error and the affidavit was actually sworn in London Bedford before a UK notary public.

Issues

  1. Whether the court should review its decision striking off the 1st applicant's affidavit in reply for being filed out of time.
  2. Whether the court should review its decision that the appeal was unchallenged.
  3. Whether the court should review its decision setting aside the temporary injunction.
  4. Whether the applicant's affidavit in support of the review application is fatally defective for indicating it was sworn in Kampala before a UK notary public.

Orders

  • The preliminary objection is dismissed.
  • The affidavit in support of the application may be rectified to reflect where it was sworn from.
  • Once rectification is done, the application will be determined on its merits.

Rules and key headnotes

Civil Procedure — Affidavits — Defects — Typing Error as to Place of Swearing
A typing error in an affidavit indicating it was sworn in Kampala when it was actually sworn abroad before a foreign notary public does not render the affidavit a nullity and may be rectified in the interests of justice under Article 126(2)(e) of the Constitution.
Civil Procedure — Affidavits — Foreign Commissioners — Jurisdiction
Under Section 12 of the Oaths Act, a foreign notary public may lawfully administer an oath for use in Uganda only where the affidavit is sworn outside Uganda, not within Uganda's jurisdiction.
Constitutional Law — Administration of Justice — Substantive Justice — Article 126(2)(e)
Article 126(2)(e) of the Constitution requires courts to administer substantive justice without undue regard to technicalities, and this principle applies to procedural defects in affidavits that can be rectified.

Legislation cited (4)

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Angelina Kagere Lubowa and Others v Paul Bwanika Mukasa (Miscellaneous Application 690 of 2025) [2025] UGHCFD 124 (3 October 2025)
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.