Wakilii

Kasaala Growers Co-operative Society v Kakooza & Another (Civil Application 19 of 2010)

Supreme Court · [2010] UGSC 29 · 2010 Application Struck Out AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Application to the Supreme Court for extension of time within which to file a Memorandum and Record of Appeal
Decision
Application for extension of time struck out as incompetent for lack of a valid supporting affidavit

Observed later treatment

Treatment recorded in citing cases followed in 2 · distinguished in 1 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.

Good law Followed in 2 cases and applied in 0 cases, with no adverse treatment recorded. Citations rising — 23 citing cases on record, 10 in the most recent three data years. 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 struck out an application for extension of time to file an appeal. The supporting affidavit was sworn by an illiterate deponent but its jurat did not comply with section 3 of the Illiterates Protection Act, which requires the writer to state that the document was read over and explained to the deponent who appeared to understand it. The court distinguished a merely defective affidavit, treated liberally, from failure to comply with a mandatory statutory requirement, which is fatal and renders the document inadmissible. With the affidavit struck out, the application lacked the supporting affidavit required by rule 43 and was incompetent. The objections to the Power of Attorney and the absence of a board resolution were rejected.

Outcome

Application for extension of time struck out as incompetent for lack of a valid supporting affidavit

Facts

The applicant co-operative society sold the respondents 1000 hectares of land at Nampiki, Luwero for UGX 34 million, of which the respondents paid UGX 14,250,000, the balance payable after renewal of the title. A dispute arose when the applicant sold off one square mile of the land to a third party, Kigayaza. The respondents sued in the High Court for specific performance and eviction; the applicant pleaded acquiescence and waiver. The High Court dismissed the suit in the applicant's favour, but the Court of Appeal reversed that decision. The applicant filed a Notice of Appeal and requested the record, then instructed advocates to pursue the appeal, but they failed to file it before time expired. A second firm also failed to act. The applicant, through Bumbakali Sande holding Powers of Attorney, then brought this application for extension of time, supported by Sande's affidavit. Sande, who did not understand English, admitted the documents were actually drawn by one Charles Kaddu.

Issues

  1. Whether the affidavit in support of the application, sworn by an illiterate deponent without the jurat required by the Illiterates Protection Act, is admissible.
  2. Whether the Power of Attorney granted to the applicant's representative was invalid for non-payment of stamp duty.
  3. Whether a board resolution was required to authorise the appointment of the applicant's attorney.
  4. Whether the application is competent in the absence of a valid supporting affidavit as required by rule 43 of the Rules of the Supreme Court.

Orders

  • The affidavit of Bumbakali Sande sworn on 24 August 2010 is struck out.
  • The application is struck out with costs in favour of the respondents.

Rules and key headnotes

Evidence — Affidavits — Illiterate deponent — Mandatory jurat under the Illiterates Protection Act
Where a document is written for an illiterate person, section 3 of the Illiterates Protection Act requires the writer to state in the jurat his true and full name and address and that the document was read over and explained to the deponent who appeared to understand it; failure to comply is fatal and renders the affidavit inadmissible.
Evidence — Affidavits — Distinction between a defective affidavit and breach of a statutory requirement
A distinction must be drawn between a merely defective affidavit, which is treated liberally in line with article 126 of the Constitution, and failure to comply with a mandatory statutory requirement, which is fatal and cannot be cured by the liberal approach to technicalities.
Civil Procedure — Applications — Competence — Requirement of a supporting affidavit under rule 43
A formal application to the Supreme Court must be supported by an affidavit under rule 43 of the Rules of the Court; once the supporting affidavit is struck out, the application is left without the requisite affidavit and is rendered incompetent.
Company Law — Authority to litigate — Board resolution not always necessary
A resolution of the board of directors is not always necessary to institute proceedings or to authorise the issue of Powers of Attorney in the name of a company or society; any director competent to exercise the powers vested in the board may give such authority.

Legislation cited (9)

Cases cited (4)

  • Banco Arabe Espanol v Bank of Uganda (Civil Appeal No. 8 of 1998)
  • Ngoma-Ngime v Electoral Commission and Winnie Byanyima (Election Petition Appeal No. 11 of 2002)
  • United Assurance Co. Ltd v Attorney General (Civil Appeal No. 1 of 1986)
  • Navichandera Kakubhai Radia v Kakubhai Kalidas and Co. Ltd (Civil Appeal No. 10 of 1994)

Cases citing this judgment (22)

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.

Kasaala Growers Co-operative Society v Kakooza & Another (Civil Application 19 of 2010) [2010] UGSC 29 (28 September 2010)
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.