Wakilii

Ibrahim Ntawomenya v Jane Nsenga (Criminal Revision 5 of 2023)

High Court · [2025] UGHC 1277 · 2025 Revision Allowed — Application Dismissed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Application for revision of magistrate's court proceedings under Section 83 of the Civil Procedure Act
Decision
Miscellaneous Application No. 11 of 2021 dismissed following revision

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 before a person not qualified to practice as a Commissioner of Oaths is invalid and of no legal effect. Under the Commissioner of Oaths (Advocates) Act, only practising advocates are eligible for appointment as Commissioners of Oaths, and a commission immediately terminates when the holder ceases to practise as an advocate. Where an affidavit supporting a notice of motion is defective because it was commissioned by a suspended advocate, the defect goes to the root of the application and the entire application fails.

Outcome

Miscellaneous Application No. 11 of 2021 dismissed following revision

Facts

The applicant sought revision of magistrate's court proceedings in Miscellaneous Application No. 11 of 2021, which was an application for leave to appear and defend in Civil Suit No. 037 of 2021. The respondent's affidavit in support of the application was sworn before Augustine Semakula as Commissioner of Oaths on 23 February 2021. The applicant requested verification of Mr. Semakula's status on the roll of advocates. The Chief Registrar responded that although Mr. Semakula's suspension expired on 16 March 2016, he had not been reinstated by the Disciplinary Committee to practise law and was not entitled to practice as an advocate. The applicant contended that the affidavit was invalid because it was commissioned by a person barred from practice. The respondent did not respond to the revision application.

Issues

  1. Whether an affidavit commissioned before an advocate whose right to practice has been suspended and who was therefore not a practising advocate is valid in law?

Orders

  • Miscellaneous Application No. 11 of 2021 dismissed.
  • No order as to costs.

Rules and key headnotes

Civil Procedure — Affidavits — Validity — Commissioner of Oaths
An affidavit sworn before a person not qualified to practice as a Commissioner of Oaths is invalid and of no legal effect.
Administrative Law — Commissioners of Oaths — Eligibility — Practising Advocates
Under Section 1(1) of the Commissioner of Oaths (Advocates) Act, only practising advocates are eligible for appointment as Commissioners of Oaths, and under Section 1(4), a commission immediately terminates when the holder ceases to practise as an advocate.
Administrative Law — Advocates — Practising Certificate — Requirement
Absent a practising certificate issued under Section 16 of the Advocates Act, an advocate loses the right to practice law and becomes ineligible to function as a Commissioner of Oaths.
Civil Procedure — Notice of Motion — Defective Affidavit — Effect
Where an affidavit supporting a notice of motion is defective because it was commissioned by a person not qualified to act as a Commissioner of Oaths, the defect goes to the root of the application under Order 19 Rule 3(1) of the Civil Procedure Rules and the entire application fails.
Evidence — Judicial Notice — Settled Matters
Where a matter has been the subject of findings by a number of courts of record and those findings have not been challenged or reversed, it becomes a judicially noticed fact requiring no further evidence.

Legislation cited (11)

Cases cited (4)

  • Dr. Wanzige Magoola v Makerere University Business School and Another (Civil Miscellaneous Application No. 417 of 2020)
  • Standard Chartered Bank (U) Ltd v Mwesigwa Geoffrey Philip (HCMA No. 477 of 2012)
  • M/S Job Connect (U) Ltd v DFCU Bank Ltd (HC Miscellaneous Application No. 627 of 2014)
  • Hard Rock Quarry (U) Ltd v Commissioner Land Registration and Another (HC Civil Appeal No. 116 of 2015)

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Ibrahim Ntawomenya v Jane Nsenga (Criminal Revision 5 of 2023) [2025] UGHC 1277 (7 November 2025)
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.