Wakilii

Gani v Garage (Civil Suit No. 113 of 1955)

East African Court of Appeal · [1955] EACA 5 · 1955 Application Adjourned — Additional Affidavit Ordered AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Application in chambers by decree-holders for order to transfer decree for execution to Tanganyika Territory
Decision
Application adjourned pending filing of proper affidavit by decree-holders personally

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 affidavit sworn by an advocate on information and belief supplied by a client, without adequate grounds stated, is not acceptable to support an interlocutory application. Where the client is available to depone to facts within their own knowledge or belief, the client rather than the advocate should swear the affidavit. The Court ordered an additional affidavit to be filed by the decree-holders personally, with costs of the irregular affidavit and adjournment to be borne by the decree-holders, not the judgment-debtor.

Outcome

Application adjourned pending filing of proper affidavit by decree-holders personally

Facts

Decree-holders applied in chambers for an order to transfer a decree for execution to Tanganyika Territory. The application was supported by an affidavit sworn by their advocate stating that he had been informed by the decree-holders that the judgment-debtors had no property within the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court but had property and carried on business in Arusha, Tanganyika Territory. The affidavit contained statements of belief without adequate grounds being stated, and was sworn by the advocate rather than by the decree-holders themselves who were available.

Issues

  1. Whether an affidavit sworn by an advocate on information and belief supplied by a client, without stating adequate grounds for belief, is acceptable to support an interlocutory application.
  2. Whether the Court should order an additional affidavit to be filed by the client personally when the advocate's affidavit fails to meet evidentiary standards.
  3. Who should bear the costs of an irregular affidavit and the resulting adjournment.

Orders

  • Additional affidavit to be filed by the decree-holders or one of them.
  • Summons adjourned for seven days for filing of additional affidavit.
  • Costs of the advocate's affidavit and adjournment to be borne by the decree-holders.
  • No costs of the present affidavit or adjournment to be charged against the judgment-debtor.

Rules and key headnotes

Civil Procedure — Affidavits — Statements on Information and Belief — Requirement to State Grounds
Order 18, rule 3(1) permits affidavits on interlocutory applications to contain statements of belief provided the grounds thereof are stated. The necessity for stating grounds for any statement of belief must be strictly observed, and affidavits containing statements on information and belief without stating grounds are irregular and ought not to be accepted by a court.
Evidence — Best Evidence Rule — Affidavits by Advocates on Client's Information
Where a client is available to depone to facts within their own knowledge or belief, the client rather than their advocate should swear the affidavit. An advocate swearing an affidavit on information supplied by an available client risks obliterating unacceptable grounds or obtaining undue advantage in defeat of the rule requiring grounds for belief to be stated.
Civil Procedure — Costs — Irregular Affidavits
Where an affidavit is irregular for failing to state grounds for statements of belief, the costs of that affidavit and any resulting adjournment should be borne by the party responsible for filing the irregular affidavit, not by the opposing party.

Legislation cited (3)

  • Civil Procedure (Revised) Rules 1948 Order 50 rule 7
  • Civil Procedure (Revised) Rules 1948 Order 18 rule 3(1)
  • Civil Procedure (Revised) Rules 1948 Order 18 rule 1

Cases cited (4)

  • Young v J L Young Manufacturing Co Ltd [1900] 2 Ch 753
  • Phakey v Worldwide Agencies Ltd (1948) 15 EACA 1
  • Standard Goods Corporation Ltd v Harakhchand Nathu & Co (1950) 17 EACA 99
  • Noormohamed Janmohamed v Kassamali Virji Madhani (1953) 20 EACA 8

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Gani v Garage (Civil Suit No. 113 of 1955) [1955] EACA 5 (1 January 1955)
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.