Katunda v Atuhaire (HCT-05-CV-MA-0185-2004)

Observed later treatment

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.

Holding

The High Court struck out an application as incompetent where the supporting affidavit contained six annextures in a language other than English without translation. Section 88 of the Civil Procedure Act unambiguously requires English as the language of all courts, written applications, and evidence recording. The court cannot discern documents in another language to arrive at relief sought in the absence of translation.

Outcome

Application struck out as incompetent

Facts

The applicant filed an application supported by an affidavit with six annextures labeled A, B, C1, C2, D, and E. Five of these were agreements and one was a copy of an LC I Court judgment. All six annextures were in a language other than English. No translation was provided. The respondent's counsel raised a preliminary objection that the application was incompetent because the annextures contravened the requirement that English be the language of court under Section 88 of the Civil Procedure Act.

Issues

1. Whether an application supported by an affidavit containing annextures in a language other than English is competent under the Civil Procedure Act.

Orders

• Application struck out with costs.

Rules and key headnotes

Legislation cited (1)

• Civil Procedure Act s.88

Cases citing this judgment (1)

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.

• Tumwesigye v Kamugisha (Civil Appeal 54 of 2022)

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