Attorney General v Lutaaya (Civil Application 1 of 2007)

Observed later treatment

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.

Holding

The applicant sought an extension of time to file a memorandum of appeal. The court held that under Rules 42 and 43(1) such an application must be supported by sworn affidavit evidence establishing sufficient reason for the delay. The document filed in support, purportedly sworn by the Acting Director of Civil Litigation, had not been commissioned before a Commissioner for Oaths, and counsel conceded it was not sworn. The court held that an unsworn affidavit is not an affidavit in law; the defect was one of substantive law, not a mere procedural anomaly curable under Rule 2(2). Without valid affidavit evidence there was no proof of sufficient reason, so the application was incompetent and was struck out with costs.

Outcome

Application for extension of time struck out as incompetent for want of a valid supporting affidavit

Facts

The Attorney General applied for an extension of time within which to file a memorandum of appeal. The application was brought by Notice of Motion and stated that its grounds were contained in an affidavit of Joseph Matsiko, the Acting Director of Civil Litigation. The asserted reasons for the delay were that the State Attorney handling the matter had resigned and that registry staff had failed to forward the file to the Director of Civil Litigation in time. The respondent opposed the application and pointed out that the document relied on as Matsiko's affidavit had not been commissioned before a Commissioner for Oaths. The court itself drew this to the attention of counsel for the applicant, who agreed that the document was not sworn and conceded that it was therefore not an affidavit, yet continued to argue from it.

Issues

1. Whether the application for extension of time was supported by an affidavit as required by Rule 43(1) of the Supreme Court Rules.
2. Whether an affidavit that has not been commissioned or sworn before a Commissioner for Oaths is an affidavit in law capable of supporting the application.
3. Whether the defect in the affidavit could be cured by the court's power under Rule 2(2).

Orders

• Application struck out as incompetent.
• Costs awarded to the respondent.

Rules and key headnotes

Legislation cited (8)

• Judicature (Supreme Court Rules) Directions r.5
• Judicature (Supreme Court Rules) Directions r.41(2)
• Judicature (Supreme Court Rules) Directions r.42(2)
• Judicature (Supreme Court Rules) Directions r.43(1)
• Judicature (Supreme Court Rules) Directions r.2(2)
• Commissioners for Oaths (Advocates) Act (Cap.5) s.5
• Oaths Act (Cap.19) s.5
• Oaths Act (Cap.19) s.6

Cases cited (1)

• ERIC SABILA -Vs- ... BEGITATSA & ORS, CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 78/2002

Cases citing this judgment (4)

How later Ugandan judgments in the Wakilii corpus have cited this case. Treatment labels come from Sequitur — Uganda’s citator — each backed by a verbatim span from the citing judgment, and are not an assertion that this case is, or is not, good law.

• Brenda Nabukenya v Rebecca Nalwanga Balwana (Taxation Reference No. 208 of 2014)
• Nabukenya v Nalwanga (Taxation Reference No. 208 of 2014)
• Standard Chartered Bank (U) Ltd v Mwesigwa (HCMA 477 of 2012) distinguished
• A. K. P. M. Lutaaya v Attorney General (Civil Reference 1 of 2007)

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