Wakilii

Kintu Ronald Bulere and Another v Grace Power Aligawesa and Others (Miscellaneous Application 387 of 2024)

High Court · [2025] UGHC 376 · 2025 Application Dismissed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Application for temporary injunction arising from ongoing civil suit concerning land ownership
Decision
Application struck out on preliminary objections without determination on merits

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 preliminary grounds. The court held that service of the chamber summons 51 days after endorsement, without seeking leave to extend time, rendered the application incompetent under Order 5 rule 1 of the Civil Procedure Rules. The court further held that annexures to the affidavit in support were not properly sealed by the Commissioner for Oaths as required by rule 8 of the Commissioner for Oaths Rules, rendering them defective. The application was struck out with costs to abide the outcome of the main suit.

Outcome

Application struck out on preliminary objections without determination on merits

Facts

The applicants, administrators of an estate, sought a temporary injunction restraining the respondents from evicting them from land comprised in Bulemezi Block 620 Plots 4, 5, 7, 9, 10 and 11 at Kibula, Luwero district, pending determination of the main suit (Civil Suit No. HCT-17-LD-CS-0093-2022). The applicants alleged they and bibanja holders had occupied the land for over sixty years. The first respondent claimed to be the registered proprietor since 2006. The applicants alleged that in November 2024 the first applicant's house was destroyed and the respondents attempted to take possession by installing boundary poles. The chamber summons was endorsed on 26 January 2025 but not served on the respondents until 18 March 2025, 51 days later. The respondents raised preliminary objections concerning late service and defective affidavits.

Issues

  1. Whether the application is incompetent for having been served out of time without leave of court.
  2. Whether the applicant's affidavit in support is defective for non-compliance with the Oaths Act and Illiterates Protection Act.
  3. Whether the application warrants the grant of a temporary injunction.

Orders

  • Application struck out.
  • Costs to abide the outcome of the main suit.

Rules and key headnotes

Civil Procedure — Service of Process — Time Limits — Mandatory Requirement for Service within 21 Days
Order 5 rule 1 of the Civil Procedure Rules mandates that service of summons or chamber summons must be effected within 21 days from the date of issue. Where service is effected outside this period without leave of court to extend time, the application or suit is incompetent and must be dismissed. The court has no discretion to overlook this mandatory requirement as it goes to jurisdiction.
Civil Procedure — Affidavits — Annexures — Requirement for Sealing by Commissioner for Oaths
Rule 8 of the Commissioner for Oaths Rules requires that annexures or exhibits to affidavits shall be securely sealed to the affidavit under the seal of the Commissioner and marked with serial letters of identification. This requirement is mandatory and applies universally to all documents attached to affidavits, including court judgments. The purpose is to ensure authentication of documents and prevent reliance on documents other than those referred to in the affidavit. Non-compliance renders the annexures defective and they cannot be relied upon.
Civil Procedure — Preliminary Objections — Determination Before Merits
Where a preliminary objection is raised, it ought to be disposed of first before determining the main suit or application. Under Order 15 rule 2 of the Civil Procedure Rules, where issues of both law and fact arise and the court is of the opinion that the case may be disposed of on the issue of law only, it shall try those issues first and may postpone settlement of issues of fact until after the issues of law have been determined.
Civil Procedure — Affidavits — Certificate of Translation — Not Required to be Commissioned
A certificate of translation made under Section 2 of the Illiterates Protection Act is distinct from a jurat. The provisions of the Illiterates Protection Act do not restrict the making of a certificate of translation to only commissioners for oaths but permit any person knowledgeable of both English and a local language understood by the illiterate to make the certificate. What is required is that the translator state their full name and address. There is no requirement for commissioning of the certificate of translation itself.

Legislation cited (8)

Cases cited (14)

  • Kiyimba Kaggwa v Halji Nasser Katende (1985) HCB 43
  • Fredrick K. James Juniu and Another v Madhivan Group and Another (Miscellaneous Application No. 688 of 2015)
  • Bitamiei Namuddu v Rwabuganda Godfrey (Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 16 of 2014)
  • Ejab Family Investment and Trading Company Ltd v Centenary Rural Development Bank Ltd (High Court Civil Suit No. 01 of 2004)
  • Fitzpatrick v Batger & Co. Ltd [1967] 2 All ER 657
  • Amdan Khan v Stanbic Bank (U) Ltd (High Court Commercial Miscellaneous Application No. 900 of 2013)
  • Kanyabwera v Tumwebwa (2005) 2 EA 86
  • Kevin Otim v Eskom Uganda Limited (Miscellaneous Application No. 1041 of 2023)
  • Gladys Senkubuge and Another v Kibirango Joyce (Miscellaneous Application No. 1704 of 2019)
  • Kassami v Commissioner Land Registration (Miscellaneous Application No. 424 of 1996)
  • Byeshamika John v Kankwerere Lydia (Miscellaneous Application No. 82 of 2005)
  • Baryaija Julius v Kikwisire Zaveio and Another (Court of Appeal Civil Appeal No. 324 of 2025)
  • Project Blue Sky Inc. v Australian Broadcasting Authority (1998) 194 CLR 355
  • Sitenda Sebalu v Sam K. Njuba and Another (Supreme Court Election Petition No. 26 of 2007)

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Kintu Ronald Bulere and Another v Grace Power Aligawesa and Others (Miscellaneous Application 387 of 2024) [2025] UGHC 376 (4 June 2025)
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.