Wakilii

Kamwenge produce dealers and general merchandise v Musiisi (Civil Suit 534 of 159)

High Court · [1992] UGHC 38 · 1992 Application Dismissed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Application for temporary injunction within a civil suit for breach of contract
Decision
Application struck out for defective affidavit; main suit to proceed

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 High Court struck out an application for a temporary injunction on the ground that the supporting affidavit was incurably defective. The affidavit contained paragraphs fundamental to the application that were stated to be based on information and belief but failed to disclose the source of that information and belief. While the court overruled preliminary objections regarding omission of the suit number, absence of English translations of vernacular documents, and vagueness as to the applicable rules, it held that an affidavit made on information and belief must state the ground of that information and belief to prevent unsubstantiated statements. The defective affidavit could not be acted upon.

Outcome

Application struck out for defective affidavit; main suit to proceed

Facts

The plaintiff brought a civil suit claiming breach of contract and sought a temporary injunction restraining the defendant from disposing of suit property. The plaintiff claimed damages exceeding UGX 20,000,000. Two agreements in vernacular language were attached to the plaint. The supporting affidavit stated that the defendant was disposing of property at UGX 3,000 per pole, which would not cover the plaintiff's claim, and that the defendant was an ordinary peasant without substantial income who would be unable to pay damages. These statements were made on information and belief without disclosing the source. The defendant raised preliminary objections challenging the validity of the application.

Issues

  1. Whether the application for a temporary injunction should be struck out for failure to state the civil suit number in the chamber summons.
  2. Whether the application is defective in material facts for failure to attach English translations of agreements written in vernacular language.
  3. Whether paragraphs of the supporting affidavit based on information and belief without stating the source of information are admissible.
  4. Whether the applicant can obtain a temporary injunction where they seek quantified damages in the main suit.
  5. Whether the application is vague for failure to state the rules under which it is brought.

Orders

  • Application for a temporary injunction struck out.
  • Costs to be in the cause.

Rules and key headnotes

Civil Procedure — Applications for Temporary Injunctions — Supporting Affidavits — Information and Belief
Where a deponent makes a statement in an affidavit on information and belief, the deponent must state the ground of that information and belief to prevent the drawer of an affidavit from putting in statements they cannot substantiate in the hope that the court will act on them.
Civil Procedure — Defective Affidavits — Effect on Applications
Where an affidavit in support of an application contains fundamental paragraphs that are incurably defective because they are based on information and belief without stating the source, the court cannot act on such an affidavit and the application must be struck out.
Civil Procedure — Preliminary Objections — Omission of Suit Number
The mere omission or oversight of failing to write down the number of the civil suit in a chamber summons is not fatal and can be corrected, especially where the respondent is already aware of the suit number from the plaint.
Civil Procedure — Language of Court Proceedings — Translation of Documents
The absence of English translations of documents attached to a plaint and written in vernacular language is a matter of evidence that arises at the hearing of the application and not a proper subject for a preliminary objection; the lack of translation does not mean there is no suit before the court.

Legislation cited (2)

Cases cited (2)

  • Standard Goods Ltd v H Bracheland & Co P Ltd (Civil Appeal No. 21 of 1950)
  • Hooper Mohamed Jan Mohamed Vs. Kassamali Verji Modhani [1953] 20 E.A.C.A.

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Kamwenge produce dealers and general merchandise v Musiisi (Civil Suit 534 of 159) [1992] UGHC 38 (2 September 1992)
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.