Black Market Records v Malinga & Others (Miscellaneous Application 2788 of 2023)

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

Held that an affidavit sworn by a person claiming to be an officer of a company without attaching proof of that capacity is incompetent and fatally defective. Where the sole affidavit supporting an application is invalid, the application is unsupported by evidence and must be dismissed. Application dismissed with costs to the 4th Respondent.

Outcome

Application dismissed for want of valid supporting affidavit

Facts

The Applicant, Black Market Records, sought to set aside an ex parte order granted to the Respondents in Civil Suit No. 864 of 2021. The Applicant claimed its counsel was admitted to hospital and could not attend court on 30 October 2023 when the ex parte order was granted. The application was supported by an affidavit deponed by Mr. Cedric Singleton, who described himself as an officer of the Applicant company. The 4th Respondent opposed the application on preliminary grounds, contending that Mr. Singleton failed to disclose his specific capacity or attach evidence proving he was an official of the Applicant company, and that parts of his affidavit contained inadmissible hearsay. The Applicant did not file a rejoinder or provide further proof of the deponent's capacity.

Issues

1. Whether the deponent of the affidavit in support disclosed the capacity under which he represented the Applicant and attached evidence showing he was an official of the Applicant.
2. Whether the Order to proceed ex parte can be set aside.

Orders

• Application dismissed.
• Costs awarded to the 4th Respondent.

Rules and key headnotes

Legislation cited (11)

• Civil Procedure Act Cap. 71 s.98
• Judicature Act Cap. 13 s.33
• Civil Procedure Rules SI 71-1 Order 9 Rule 21
• Civil Procedure Rules SI 71-1 Order 9 Rule 27
• Civil Procedure Rules SI 71-1 Order 52 Rule 1
• Civil Procedure Rules SI 71-1 Order 52 Rule 2
• Civil Procedure Rules SI 71-1 Order 52 Rule 3
• Civil Procedure Rules Order 15 Rule 5(1)
• Civil Procedure Rules Order 3 Rule 1
• Civil Procedure Rules Order 19 Rule 3
• Civil Procedure Rules Order 3 Rule 2

Cases cited (6)

• Mukisa Biscuit Manufacturing Co. Ltd v West End Distributors [1969] EA 696
• Najjuma Jesca and Others v Moses Joloba & Anor (Miscellaneous Application No. 770 of 2015)
• Kalgana v Dabo Boubou [1986] HCB 59
• MHK Engineering Services (U) Ltd v Macdowell Ltd (HCMA No. 825 of 2018)
• Ssali Samuel v Gladys K. Rwamwamba (HCMA No. 514 of 2014)
• Isingoma Michael v Law Development Centre (HCMA No. 234 of 2019)

Cases citing this judgment (1)

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.

• Tuwei Muhammad Kiprugu and Others v Eastern Uganda Agriculture Limited and Others (Civil Appeal No. 45 of 2025)

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