Wakilii

Kitasha Coffee Buyers & Farmers Ltd and Others v Stanbic Bank (U) Ltd (Miscellaneous Application No. 581 of 2016)

High Court · [2016] UGCOMMC 317 · 2016 Application Dismissed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Application to set aside ex parte judgment arising from Civil Suit No. 178 of 2014
Decision
Application dismissed for 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

The court held that an affidavit sworn by one party on behalf of co-applicants without written authority as required by Order 1 rule 12 of the Civil Procedure Rules is incurably defective and cannot support a notice of motion. The application to set aside ex parte judgment was dismissed with costs.

Outcome

Application dismissed for defective affidavit

Facts

The respondent bank obtained ex parte judgment against all three applicants in Civil Suit No. 178 of 2014. The applicants brought this application to set aside the ex parte judgment, claiming they were never served. The 3rd applicant, Sarah Kitaka, swore an affidavit in support of the motion in the first person narrative but made averments on behalf of all three applicants throughout the affidavit. No written authority was filed showing that the 1st and 2nd applicants had authorized the 3rd applicant to swear the affidavit on their behalf. The respondent's counsel raised a preliminary objection at the hearing on grounds that the affidavit contravened Order 1 rule 12 of the Civil Procedure Rules.

Issues

  1. Whether the affidavit in support of the application, sworn by the 3rd applicant without written authority from the 1st and 2nd applicants, was defective under Order 1 rule 12 of the Civil Procedure Rules.

Orders

  • Application dismissed.
  • Costs awarded to the respondent.

Rules and key headnotes

Affidavits — Representative Capacity — Requirement for Written Authority
Where there are multiple applicants and one seeks to swear an affidavit on behalf of the others, written authority signed by the parties giving it must be filed as required by Order 1 rule 12 of the Civil Procedure Rules; an affidavit sworn in representative capacity without such authority is incurably defective and cannot support a notice of motion.
Affidavits — Competence of Deponent — Personal Knowledge
A person is competent to swear an affidavit only on matters or facts they personally know about or on information they receive and believe; an affidavit sworn in a representative capacity without proper authority is defective for want of authority.

Legislation cited (6)

Cases cited (3)

  • Nakalema & 3 Others v Mucunguzi Myers (Miscellaneous Application No. 460 of 2013)
  • Kaingana V Dabo Boubon [1986] HCB 59
  • Taremwa Kamishana Tomas v Attorney General (Miscellaneous Application No. 38 of 2012)

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Kitasha Coffee Buyers & Farmers Ltd and Others v Stanbic Bank (U) Ltd (Miscellaneous Application No. 581 of 2016) [2016] UGCommC 317 (7 October 2016)
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.