Wakilii

Kamwenge Produce Dealers & General Merchandise v Musisi (Civil Suit 534 of 1992)

High Court · [1992] UGHC 35 · 1992 Application Dismissed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Application for temporary injunction in a civil suit for breach of contract
Decision
Application struck out on the basis of a defective 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

An application for a temporary injunction was struck out because the supporting affidavit contained material paragraphs stated on information and belief without disclosing the source of that information. Such an affidavit has an incurable defect and cannot be acted upon by the court. The omission of a civil suit number from the chamber summons is not fatal and can be corrected. The question of English translation of vernacular documents is an evidential matter to be determined at the hearing of the application, not a preliminary objection. Costs were awarded in the cause.

Outcome

Application struck out on the basis of a defective affidavit

Facts

The plaintiff/applicant Kamwenge Produce Dealers & General Merchandise filed Civil Suit No. 534 of 1992 against the defendant/respondent Musisi Matti Ssebalongo claiming damages for breach of contract in excess of 20 million shillings. The plaintiff applied for a temporary injunction to restrain the defendant from disposing of suit property. The defendant raised preliminary objections challenging the validity of the application on multiple grounds including the absence of a suit number on the chamber summons, lack of English translation of vernacular documents, and defective affidavit paragraphs based on information and belief without stating the source.

Issues

  1. Whether an application for a temporary injunction should be struck out where the supporting affidavit contains paragraphs based on information and belief without stating the source of that information.
  2. Whether an application is defective where the civil suit number is omitted from the chamber summons.
  3. Whether an application is defective where documents in vernacular language are not accompanied by English translation.
  4. Whether the absence of the source of information in an affidavit made on information and belief is a preliminary objection or goes to the merits of the application.

Orders

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

Rules and key headnotes

Civil Procedure — Affidavits — Information and Belief — Requirement to State Source
Where a deponent makes a statement in an affidavit on information and belief, the deponent must state the ground of that information and belief. An affidavit which does not fulfil this condition should not be relied on by the court.
Civil Procedure — Affidavits — Defective Affidavit — Effect on Application
An application for a temporary injunction supported by an affidavit containing material paragraphs based on information and belief without disclosing the source constitutes an incurable defect, and the application must be struck out.
Civil Procedure — Preliminary Objections — Omission of Suit Number from Chamber Summons
The mere omission or oversight in failing to write down the number of a civil suit on the chamber summons is not fatal where the respondent is already aware of the suit number from the plaint served upon him. The omission can be corrected without striking out the application.
Civil Procedure — Language of Court — Translation of Vernacular Documents
The absence of English translation of documents expressed in vernacular language is a matter of evidence which will arise at the hearing of the application, not a preliminary objection that renders the suit non-existent before the court.

Legislation cited (2)

Cases cited (2)

  • Standard Goods Ltd v H Hracheland (Civil Appeal No. 21 of 1950)
  • Noor Mohamed Janhohamed v Kassamali Verji Hodhan [1953] 20 EACA

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Kamwenge Produce Dealers & General Merchandise v Musisi (Civil Suit 534 of 1992) [1992] UGHC 35 (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.