Wakilii

Electro Maxx Uganda Limited v Oryx Oil Uganda Limited (Civil Miscellaneous Application No. 251 of 2020)

High Court · [2021] UGCOMMC 17 · 2021 Application Dismissed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Application for leave to appear and defend arising from summary suit for debt recovery
Decision
Application struck out as incompetent; judgment entered for Plaintiff/Respondent for payment of debt with interest

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

An advocate may depose to an affidavit in support of a client's application without contravening Regulation 9 of the Advocates (Professional Conduct) Regulations provided the advocate does not personally conduct the matter. However, an affidavit must comply with Order 19 Rule 3 CPR — facts must be within the deponent's personal knowledge or, on interlocutory applications, stated on belief with grounds disclosed. Where an advocate deposes to facts beyond personal knowledge without disclosing sources, the offensive averments are hearsay and must be expunged. If the remaining averments cannot sustain the application, it is incompetent.

Outcome

Application struck out as incompetent; judgment entered for Plaintiff/Respondent for payment of debt with interest

Facts

Between 2018 and 2019, the Respondent supplied petroleum products on credit to the Applicant under an oral contract. On 19th December 2019, the Applicant acknowledged indebtedness of USD 338,000 and proposed repayment in six monthly instalments at 17% per annum interest, but failed to honour the proposal. The Respondent issued a demand note on 11th February 2020 and subsequently filed a summary suit. The Applicant applied for leave to appear and defend, supported by an affidavit deposed by an advocate, Kagoya Allen, alleging discrepancies in the statement of account and the need for reconciliation. The Respondent objected that the affidavit was defective for being deposed by an advocate on contentious matters without proof of authority and containing hearsay.

Issues

  1. Whether the application is properly before the Court.
  2. Whether the application discloses bonafide triable issues as to justify the grant of leave to appear and defend the main suit.

Orders

  • Application for leave to appear and defend declared incompetent and struck out.
  • Judgment entered for the Plaintiff/Respondent under Order 36 Rules 3 and 5 of the CPR.
  • Payment of USD 342,732 being the outstanding sum as at 11th February 2020.
  • Interest at the rate of 17% per annum from 11th February 2020 until payment in full.
  • Costs of the suit and of the application awarded to the Respondent.

Rules and key headnotes

Civil Procedure — Affidavits — Advocates (Professional Conduct) Regulations — Personal Involvement in Client's Case
Regulation 9 of the Advocates (Professional Conduct) Regulations does not bar an advocate from deponing to an affidavit in support of a client's application on contentious matters, provided the advocate does not personally conduct the matter before the court.
Civil Procedure — Affidavits — Proof of Authority — Recognised Agents and Advocates
Under Order 3 Rule 1 CPR, an advocate acting on behalf of a client does not require proof of authority to depone to an affidavit, as they need only prove the fact of instructions. The requirement to furnish proof of authority under Order 1 Rule 12 CPR applies only where one of several plaintiffs or defendants acts for another, not to advocates acting for clients.
Evidence — Affidavits — Hearsay — Order 19 Rule 3 CPR
Under Order 19 Rule 3(1) CPR, affidavits must be confined to facts within the deponent's own knowledge. On interlocutory applications, statements of belief may be admitted provided the grounds of belief are stated. Where an advocate depones to facts not in personal knowledge without disclosing sources of information or grounds of belief, the averments constitute hearsay and are offensive to the rule.
Civil Procedure — Affidavits — Expunging Offensive Averments — Sustainability of Remaining Averments
Where an affidavit contains both offensive and proper averments, the offensive portions may be expunged. The court will rely on the remaining averments only if they are capable of sustaining the party's claim. If the remaining averments cannot sustain the application, the application is incompetent.
Civil Procedure — Summary Suits — Leave to Defend — Order 36 Rule 4 CPR
Under Order 36 Rule 4 CPR, an application for leave to appear and defend a summary suit must be supported by an affidavit that discloses whether the defence goes to the whole or part of the plaintiff's claim and sets out facts capable of disclosing triable issues. Where the affidavit raises no defence and discloses no triable issues, the application is incompetent.

Legislation cited (8)

Cases cited (3)

  • Samuel Kamau Mwanji (deceased) v Boniface Nthenge (Civil Appeal No. 327 of 2020)
  • Uganda Development Bank v Kasirye Byaruhanga & Co. Advocates (SCCA No. 35 of 1994)
  • Kizza Besigye v Electoral Commission and Another (Presidential Petition No. 1 of 2001)

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Electro Maxx Uganda Limited v Oryx Oil Uganda Limited (Civil Miscellaneous Application No. 251 of 2020) [2021] UGCommC 17 (28 May 2021)
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.