Wakilii

Kakoola v Waggwa (Civil Suit 411 of 1987)

High Court · [1987] UGHC 1 Preliminary Objection Dismissed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Application for leave to swear an affidavit brought under O.19 r.4 and O.19 r.9
Decision
Preliminary objection overruled; affidavit admitted

Observed later treatment

Cited — treatment unverified cited in 2 (treatment unverified) Sequitur — Uganda’s citator · Derived from citing cases in the Wakilii corpus — not an assertion that this case is good law.

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.

No adverse treatment recorded Cited 2 times with no adverse treatment recorded; not yet tested on the merits. Derived from citing cases in the Wakilii corpus — a deterministic signal, not legal advice.

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 a person appointed as Commissioner for Oaths whilst holding a valid practising certificate retains that appointment even after the certificate expires, provided the appointment itself has not been formally revoked. Under section 2 of the Advocates Act and section 10(3) as amended by the Advocates (Amendment) Decree 1976, commissioners appointed under section 2(1) may continue to administer oaths in the High Court and subordinate courts until their commission is withdrawn. The preliminary objection to the affidavit was dismissed.

Outcome

Preliminary objection overruled; affidavit admitted

Facts

Mr. Kakoola brought an application for leave to swear an affidavit under O.19 r.4 and O.19 r.9. The affidavit was sworn before a Commissioner for Oaths whose practising certificate as an advocate had expired on 31 December 1982, though the certificate was later renewed on 31 December 1986. At the time the affidavit was sworn on 22 July 1987, the commissioner's practising certificate was valid. Counsel for the respondent raised a preliminary objection that the commissioner was not a proper person to administer oaths because there had been a gap in his practising certificate, relying on section 7(4) of the Foreign Judgments (Reciprocal Enforcement) Act and section 10 of the Advocates Act as amended.

Issues

  1. Whether an affidavit sworn before a person who was formerly a practising advocate but whose practising certificate had expired is a valid affidavit.
  2. Whether an affidavit sworn before a person appointed as Commissioner for Oaths whilst their practising certificate was expired should be struck out.

Orders

  • Preliminary objection dismissed.
  • Affidavit not struck out.
  • Costs to the applicant.

Rules and key headnotes

Civil Procedure — Affidavits — Validity — Commissioner for Oaths appointed whilst holding practising certificate — Certificate subsequently lapsed and renewed — Whether affidavit sworn during period of valid certificate admissible
A person appointed as Commissioner for Oaths under section 2(1) of the Advocates Act whilst holding a valid practising certificate retains that appointment even after the certificate expires, unless the appointment itself is formally revoked. Under section 10(3) of the Advocates Act as amended by the Advocates (Amendment) Decree 1976, commissioners appointed under section 2(1) may administer oaths in the High Court and any subordinate court until their commission is withdrawn, regardless of interruptions in their practising certificate status.
Evidence — Affidavits — Competence of Commissioner for Oaths — Effect of lapse in practising certificate on validity of oath administration
An affidavit sworn before a Commissioner for Oaths whose practising certificate is valid at the time of swearing is not rendered defective by the fact that the commissioner's certificate had previously lapsed and been renewed, provided the commissioner was properly appointed whilst holding a valid certificate and that appointment has not been revoked.

Legislation cited (6)

Cases cited (1)

  • Printers Ltd v. John Kiwanuka

Cases citing this judgment (2)

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.

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Kakoola v Waggwa (Civil Suit 411 of 1987) [1987] UGHC 1 (10 August 1987)(2)
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.