Wakilii

Asharami (U) Ltd v Don Uganda Ltd and Another [2026] UGCOMMC 381

High Court · 2026 Application Dismissed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Interlocutory application (Notice of Motion) seeking leave to sell motor vehicles attached before judgment, arising from a pending civil suit
Decision
Application dismissed after the supporting affidavit was found invalid; the underlying civil suit remains pending

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 Commercial Court determined a preliminary objection that the affidavit supporting the application was commissioned by Mr. Sseguya Samuel, who had not shown a valid 2026 practising certificate. The court held that although a Commissioner for Oaths' commission does not automatically expire on 31 December with the practising certificate, it terminates on the holder ceasing to practise, suspension, or revocation. As no evidence established that the commissioner still held a valid practising certificate or was in practice when he commissioned the affidavit on 13 April 2026, the affidavit was invalid and of no legal effect. With no other supporting affidavit, the application had no foundation and was dismissed, with costs in the cause.

Outcome

Application dismissed after the supporting affidavit was found invalid; the underlying civil suit remains pending

Facts

On 23 June 2023 the applicant contracted with the 1st respondent for exclusive supply of petroleum products. As security, the 2nd respondent pledged ten motor vehicles and became a guarantor under a tripartite security agreement executed the same day. The applicant claimed the 1st respondent failed to pay an outstanding sum of UGX 1,701,141,351 plus interest. In the main suit (Civil Suit No. 178 of 2025), the applicant obtained an order (30 May 2025) attaching the ten vehicles before judgment; a court bailiff attached them and they remained idle. A valuation dated 13 June 2023 valued the vehicles at UGX 1,723,000,000 (forced value UGX 1,033,800,000), but an April 2026 valuation showed depreciation to UGX 615,000,000 (forced value UGX 369,000,000). The applicant then applied to sell the vehicles to realise the debt. The respondents opposed, raising preliminary objections including that the supporting affidavit was commissioned by a person without a valid practising certificate.

Issues

  1. Whether the affidavit in support of the application, commissioned by a person alleged to lack a valid practising certificate, is valid.
  2. Whether the applicant fulfilled the conditions for the grant of an order to sell the attached motor vehicles.
  3. What remedies are available to the parties.

Orders

  • Preliminary objection on the validity of the affidavit in support upheld.
  • The affidavit in support commissioned by Mr. Sseguya Samuel on 13th April, 2026 declared invalid.
  • Application dismissed.
  • Costs of the application to be in the cause.

Rules and key headnotes

Civil Procedure — Affidavits — Validity — Affidavit commissioned by a Commissioner for Oaths of unproven practising status
An affidavit commissioned by an advocate whose valid practising certificate and continuing status in practice at the time of commissioning are not established is invalid and of no legal effect.
Civil Procedure — Commissioners for Oaths — Duration and termination of commission
A commission to act as a Commissioner for Oaths does not automatically lapse on 31 December each year with the annual practising certificate; it terminates only when the holder ceases to practise as an advocate, is suspended, or the commission is revoked by the Chief Justice.
Civil Procedure — Applications — Effect of an invalid sole supporting affidavit
Where the only affidavit supporting an application is invalid and no other affidavit supports it, the application lacks any evidential foundation and cannot stand.
Civil Procedure — Preliminary objections — Order of determination
Where a preliminary objection is capable of disposing of the matter in issue, the court should determine the objection before embarking on the merits of the case.

Legislation cited (13)

Cases cited (6)

  • Uganda Telecom Limited v ZTE Corporation (Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 3 of 2017)
  • Abdul Ddamulira v Mss Xsabo Power Limited (Miscellaneous Application No. 46 of 2021)
  • Abaho Anania v Rwabushaija Steven (Miscellaneous Application No. 258 of 2022)
  • Kamanzi v Director of CID & 2 Others (Miscellaneous Cause No. 41 of 2023)
  • Prof. Syed Hug v The Islamic University in Uganda (Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 47 of 1995)
  • Katoto Hatwib v Kato Muhammed and Another (Election Petition Appeal No. 23 of 2021)

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Asharami (U) Ltd v Don Uganda Ltd and Another [2026] UGCOMMC 381 (5 August 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.