Wakilii

Jackline Ibingira Nintuze and Another v Robert Akankwasa and Another [2025] UGHC 1584

High Court · 2025 Application Dismissed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Application for reinstatement of dismissed civil suit, with preliminary objection raised to competence of supporting affidavit
Decision
Application dismissed for being supported by an incompetent affidavit

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

The court held that an affidavit sworn by a legal assistant who was not a party to the proceedings was incompetent to serve as the sole evidentiary basis for an application for reinstatement. While the assistant could depone to facts within her personal knowledge, critical facts establishing reasons for default were based on hearsay without adequate grounds of belief disclosed, and included inadmissible opinions and legal conclusions. The application was dismissed as fatally defective.

Outcome

Application dismissed for being supported by an incompetent affidavit

Facts

The Applicants sought reinstatement of Civil Suit No. 920 of 2024, which had been dismissed. The application was supported by an affidavit sworn by Ms. Nakamate Joyce, a legal assistant at the Applicants' law firm. The Respondents raised a preliminary objection, arguing that the affidavit was incompetent because it was deponed by a person who was neither a party to the suit nor an advocate on record, and who had not demonstrated authority to act as an agent of the Applicants. The Applicants' counsel argued that Order 19 of the Civil Procedure Rules permits any person with sufficient knowledge of the facts to swear an affidavit, and that Ms. Joyce was a legal assistant with such knowledge. The Applicants resided in the United States of America and were represented by counsel on record.

Issues

  1. Whether the affidavit sworn by Ms. Nakamate Joyce in support of Miscellaneous Application No. 1271 of 2025 is competent.

Orders

  • Preliminary objection upheld.
  • Miscellaneous Application No. 1271 of 2025 dismissed.
  • Costs awarded to the Respondents.

Rules and key headnotes

Civil Procedure — Affidavits — Competence — Requirements under Order 19 Rule 3(1)
An affidavit in support of an interlocutory application must be confined to facts within the deponent's personal knowledge, or where statements of belief are made, the grounds for that belief must be clearly stated. Merely asserting belief without substantiating how or why the deponent believes the information to be true is inadequate.
Evidence — Affidavit Evidence — Hearsay — Grounds of Belief
Where an affidavit contains hearsay without clear sources or unverifiable opinions and legal submissions, it fails to meet the standard of reliability required under Order 19 Rule 3(1) of the Civil Procedure Rules. The purpose of the 'grounds of belief' requirement is to ensure that affidavit evidence can withstand scrutiny.
Civil Procedure — Affidavits — Distinction between Order 3 and Order 19
Order 3 of the Civil Procedure Rules governs who may initiate or prosecute proceedings and requires proper authorization. Order 19 governs the quality and content of affidavit evidence. Where an application is properly initiated by counsel on record, the competence of a supporting affidavit is determined under Order 19, focusing on whether the deponent has personal knowledge or adequate grounds of belief, rather than on authorization under Order 3.
Civil Procedure — Affidavits — Inadmissible Content — Opinions and Legal Conclusions
An affidavit that contains assertions falling outside factual testimony and verging into opinion, legal argument, or unsubstantiated allegations is defective. A concluding clause stating that the deponent believes the contents to be true cannot cure specific deficiencies where sources of information or grounds for belief were not adequately disclosed.

Legislation cited (2)

Cases cited (2)

  • Emmanuel Mpagi v Muchunguzi (Miscellaneous Application No. 862 of 2011)
  • Namutebi Matilda v Ssemanda Simon and 2 Others (Miscellaneous Application No. 0430 of 2021)

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Jackline Ibingira Nintuze and Another v Robert Akankwasa and Another 2025 UGHC 1584 (20 August 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.