Wakilii

Bakampa Brian Baryaguma v Bbaaka Property Consultants (U) Ltd (Miscellaneous Cause 33 of 2023)

High Court · [2026] UGHCCD 154 · 2026 Application Dismissed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Application for enforcement of fundamental human rights under Article 50 of the Constitution and the Human Rights (Enforcement) Act, 2019
Decision
Application dismissed on preliminary objections; applicant's affidavit struck off for procedural defects

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 court sustained the respondent's preliminary objections and dismissed the application. The applicant failed to properly serve the respondent corporation as required by law, attempting service via WhatsApp without obtaining an order for substituted service. The applicant's affidavit in support was struck off for being argumentative, prolix, and containing matters of law contrary to Order 19 rule 3 of the Civil Procedure Rules. Without a valid supporting affidavit, the application could not proceed.

Outcome

Application dismissed on preliminary objections; applicant's affidavit struck off for procedural defects

Facts

The applicant was a tenant on premises managed by the respondent from March 2022. The respondent took over management in May 2022. The applicant defaulted on rent for December 2022, January and February 2023. The respondent issued a notice of termination dated 20 December 2022, terminating the tenancy on 20 January 2023. The applicant was evicted on 25 February 2023. The applicant filed an application under Article 50 of the Constitution seeking declarations that the respondent violated his constitutional rights to protection from unlawful eviction, quiet enjoyment of premises, and human dignity, and claiming general damages of UGX 100,000,000 and aggravated damages of UGX 50,000,000. The respondent raised preliminary objections challenging the validity of service and the applicant's affidavit in support.

Issues

  1. Whether the applicant properly effected service of the application on the respondent corporation.
  2. Whether the applicant's affidavit in support was defective for being argumentative, prolix, and containing matters of law.
  3. Whether the respondent's affidavit in reply was filed out of time without leave of court.
  4. Whether the respondent violated the applicant's constitutional rights to protection from unlawful eviction, quiet enjoyment of premises, and human dignity.

Orders

  • The preliminary objections raised by counsel for the respondent are sustained.
  • The applicant's affidavit in support is struck off the court's record.
  • The application is dismissed with costs to the respondent.

Rules and key headnotes

Civil Procedure — Service of Process — Service on Corporations — Requirements under Order 29 rule 2 CPR
Service of process on a corporation must comply with Order 29 rule 2 of the Civil Procedure Rules, which requires service on the secretary, director, or other principal officer of the corporation, or by leaving it or sending it by post addressed to the corporation at the registered office or place where the corporation carries on business. Service via WhatsApp without an order for substituted service does not constitute proper service.
Civil Procedure — Substituted Service — Requirement for Court Order
A party seeking to effect service by substituted means such as WhatsApp must first obtain an order for substituted service from the court. Service by such means without prior court authorization is improper and does not satisfy the requirements of the Civil Procedure Rules.
Civil Procedure — Affidavit Evidence — Prohibition Against Argumentative and Prolix Affidavits
Under Order 19 rule 3 of the Civil Procedure Rules, affidavits must be confined to facts within the deponent's own knowledge and must not contain matters of law, arguments, or unnecessary and superfluous statements. An affidavit that is argumentative, prolix, or contains matters of law is defective and must be struck out.
Civil Procedure — Affidavit Evidence — Matters of Law in Affidavits
An affidavit should contain facts and not arguments or matters of law. Where an affidavit contains provisions of law or legal arguments, it offends Order 19 rule 3 of the Civil Procedure Rules and is liable to be struck out.
Civil Procedure — Preliminary Objections — Effect of Illegality
An illegality once brought to the attention of the court overrides all questions of pleading, including any admission thereon. Where service of process is found to be illegal or improper, the court cannot proceed on the basis of such defective service.

Legislation cited (27)

Cases cited (6)

  • Stop and See (U) Ltd v Tropical Africa Bank Ltd (Miscellaneous Application No. 333 of 2010)
  • Makula International v Cardinal Nsubuga (Civil Appeal No. 4 of 1981)
  • Re Bukeni Gyari Fred (HCMA 63 of 1999)
  • Nakiridde Namwandu Vs Hotel International Ltd (1987) HCB 85
  • Male H Mabirizi K Kiwanuka v Attorney General (SC Miscellaneous Application No. 7 of 2018)
  • Wadri Mathias and Others v Dranilla Angella (Civil Revision No. 7 of 2019)

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Bakampa Brian Baryaguma v Bbaaka Property Consultants (U) Ltd (Miscellaneous Cause 33 of 2023) [2026] UGHCCD 154 (22 May 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.