Wakilii

Labu v Ocen and 2 Others (Miscellaneous Application No. 10 of 2020)

High Court · [2023] UGHCCD 14 · 2023 Application Dismissed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Application for enforcement of fundamental rights under the Human Rights (Enforcement) Act, 2019, alleging violation of right to access information
Decision
Application dismissed with costs to the respondents

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

Held that the applicant's request for information did not comply with the prescribed form under sections 5 and 11 of the Access to Information Act 2005, and therefore the applicant was not entitled to access the information sought. The application for enforcement of fundamental rights was dismissed with costs to the respondents.

Outcome

Application dismissed with costs to the respondents

Facts

The applicant, a human rights consultant, sought information from the respondents regarding Plots 25 and 25A Cemetery Road, Soroti City East Division. He made requests on 14 February 2022 and sent a reminder, expecting responses within 21 days as required by the Access to Information Act 2005. The respondents did not provide the information within the statutory period. The applicant filed an application alleging violation of his constitutional rights to access information (Article 41), civic rights (Articles 38 and 45), and economic rights (Article 40(2)). The respondents contended that they never received a proper request, that the information sought was in the custody of the Soroti District Land Board (not the respondents), and that the applicant's requests did not comply with the prescribed form under the Access to Information Act 2005. The applicant's requests were made on headed paper of Mareena Associates and signed by the applicant but did not provide sufficient particulars as required by law.

Issues

  1. Whether the affidavit in reply is incompetent?
  2. Whether the applicant's rights were violated?
  3. Whether the 2nd and 3rd respondents are liable?
  4. Whether the applicant is entitled to the prayers?

Orders

  • Application dismissed.
  • Costs awarded to the respondents.
  • Respondents' affidavit in reply struck out for being filed one day out of time.

Rules and key headnotes

Access to Information — Prescribed Form Requirements
A request for access to information under the Access to Information Act 2005 must be in the prescribed form and provide sufficient details to enable the information officer to identify the record or information requested and the person requesting it. Failure to comply with sections 5 and 11 of the Act renders the applicant not entitled to access the information.
Affidavit in Reply — Time Limits for Filing
An affidavit in reply to an application must be filed within 15 days from the date of service of the application under Order 8 rule 1(2) of the Civil Procedure Rules. The day of service is excluded in computing the 15-day period under section 34(1)(a) of the Interpretation Act. An affidavit in reply filed on the 16th day is time-barred and liable to be struck out.
Deponent of Affidavit — Capacity and Authority
A deputy town clerk has statutory capacity under the Local Government Act to represent the government in suits and to depone an affidavit in reply based on facts within his knowledge. However, the deponent should attach evidence of his appointment to establish the capacity in which he depones the affidavit.
Preliminary Objections — Errors on Face of Record
An error in the title of an affidavit in reply (such as incorrect case number) does not warrant a preliminary objection where it is not on a point of law and may not dispose of the suit. Order 6 rule 17 of the Civil Procedure Rules prohibits preliminary objections on want of form. The court may invoke its inherent powers under section 100 of the Civil Procedure Act to amend such defects in the interest of justice.

Legislation cited (38)

Cases cited (20)

  • Simon Tendo Kabenge v Barclays Bank (U) Ltd and Another (Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 17 of 2015)
  • Massa v Achen [1978] HCB 197
  • Prof. Oloka Onyango and Ors Vs Attorney General
  • Binaisa Nakalema and 3 Others v Mucunguzi Myers (Miscellaneous Application No. 460 of 2013)
  • Esemu Nicholas and Another v Mwitanirwa Kazaarwe (High Court Miscellaneous Application No. 952 of 2020)
  • Kawalya v Sebanakitta Hamis [2021] UGHCLD 78
  • Kaur v City Auction Mart Ltd [1967] EA 108
  • Kwesiga George v Iganga Municipal Council and Another (Miscellaneous Cause No. 3 of 2016) [2019]
  • Kyagulanyi Coffee Ltd Vs Waboka Fredrick & 2 Ors (2019)
  • Patrick Senyondwa and Ors Vs Lucy Nakito [2019]
  • URA Vs Uganda Consolidated Properties Limited [2011]
  • Twinomuriisa v Mugume (Miscellaneous Application No. 2127 of 2021)
  • Lam-Lagoro v Muni University [2017] UGHCCD 85
  • Stop and See (U) Limited v Tropical Africa Bank (High Court Miscellaneous Application No. 333 of 2010)
  • Levi Outa Vs Uganda Transport Company
  • Byaruhanga and Company Advocates v Uganda Development Bank (Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 2 of 2007)
  • Mukisa Biscuits Manufacturing Co. Ltd v Western End Distributors Ltd [1969] EA 696
  • Re Namatovu Tebajjukira [1992-93] HCB 85
  • Nanjibhi Prabhudas and Co. ltd V Standard Bank Ltd [1968]
  • the President of the Republic of South Africa Vs M & G Media

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Labu v Ocen and 2 Others (Miscellaneous Application No. 10 of 2020) [2023] UGHCCD 14 (23 January 2023)
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.