Bitaitana & 4 Ors v Kananura (Civil Appeal No. 47 of 1976)

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 High Court dismissed an appeal against a ruling that refused to set aside an ex-parte judgment. The Court held that an application supported by a false or inconsistent affidavit must fail because the applicant does not come to court with clean hands. Further, parties who fail to enter appearance after being properly served put themselves out of court and have no locus standi to bring subsequent applications.

Outcome

Ex-parte judgment in favour of the respondent remains in force

Facts

The respondent sued five appellants for the return of a weighing scale valued at Shs. 1,500 and general damages for its unlawful seizure and detinue. The suit followed criminal proceedings on the same matter. The appellants were served with summons to enter appearance but failed to enter appearance or file a defence. The trial magistrate entered ex-parte judgment for the respondent, awarding Shs. 1,500 for the scale's value, Shs. 200 general damages, and costs. The appellants then applied to set aside the ex-parte judgment, supporting their application with an affidavit. The trial magistrate found paragraph six of the affidavit inconsistent with paragraph two of the notice of motion and dismissed the application on the ground that the affidavit was false. The appellants appealed the dismissal.

Issues

1. Whether an application supported by a false affidavit should be dismissed.
2. Whether appellants who failed to enter appearance after being served with summons have locus standi to apply to set aside ex-parte judgment.
3. Whether inconsistencies in an affidavit can be ignored when deciding an application.

Orders

• Appeal dismissed.
• Costs awarded to the respondent.

Rules and key headnotes

Cases cited (2)

• Dyson v Attorney General [1911] 1 KB 410
• Katikiro of Buganda v Attorney General of Uganda [1958] EA 765

Cases citing this judgment (9)

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.

• Kyosimire Marion and Another v Munanura Gordon and Others (Miscellaneous Application No.137 of 2024)
• Goldmine Finance Limited v Timothy Kayondo and Another (Miscellaneous Appeal 14 of 2024)
• Richard Kisembo and Karumuna Safaris Limited v Pegasus Technologies Limited (Misc. Application No. 1493 of 2025)
• Kyagulanyi v Museveni & 2 Others (Miscellaneous Application 4 of 2021)
• Kyagulanyi Ssentamu Robert v Yoweri Museveni Tibuhaburwa and Others (Miscellaneous Application 4 of 2021)
• Baryaija v Kikwisire & Anor (Civil Appeal No. 324 of 2017)
• Kiiza v Kabakumba (Election Petition Appeal No.44 of 2016)
• Major General David Tinyefunza v Attorney General (Constitutional Petition No. 1 of 1996) distinguished
• Major General David Tinyefuza v Attorney General (Constitutional Petition No. 1 of 1996) distinguished

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