Wakilii

Lugazi Progressive & Another v Sserunjogi & 4 oers (Misc.App. No.50 Of 2000) (Misc.App. No.50 of 2000)

High Court · [2000] UGHC 32 · 2000 Preliminary Objections Dismissed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Preliminary objections in an application for revisional order to set aside LC1 court judgment and Chief Magistrate's execution order
Decision
Preliminary objections dismissed; matter adjourned for hearing of substantive application

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 rule 8 of the Commissioner for Oaths Rules applies only to exhibits produced during trial, not to annextures attached to affidavits filed in support of applications. Failure to verify annextures does not invalidate the affidavit itself. Held further that a motion is not part of the affidavit supporting it, and statements in the motion cannot render the affidavit false. Both preliminary objections overruled.

Outcome

Preliminary objections dismissed; matter adjourned for hearing of substantive application

Facts

Immaculate Mututa was allocated plots by Mbarara Municipal Council for establishment of Lugazi Progressive School. The land had been occupied by the respondents as customary tenants. The respondents sued in LC1 court and obtained judgment. The Chief Magistrate allowed the LC1 court to execute its judgment under the Resistance Committees (Judicial Powers) Statute. The applicants filed a revisional application to set aside the LC1 judgment and the Chief Magistrate's execution order, claiming lack of jurisdiction. Respondents raised two preliminary objections seeking to strike out the applicants' affidavit.

Issues

  1. Whether an affidavit with unverified annextures attached to it must be struck out for non-compliance with rule 8 of the Commissioner for Oaths Rules.
  2. Whether an affidavit in support of a motion should be struck out for allegedly containing a falsehood regarding ownership of disputed land.

Orders

  • Both preliminary objections overruled.
  • Costs in the cause.
  • Substantive application to be heard on 18th January 2001 at 9:00 a.m.
  • Deputy Registrar to notify both parties of the hearing date.

Rules and key headnotes

Affidavits — Commissioner for Oaths Rules — Verification of Annextures
Rule 8 of the Commissioner for Oaths Rules applies only to exhibits produced and exhibited to a court during trial or hearing in proof of facts, and does not apply to annextures attached to affidavits filed in support of applications.
Affidavits — Effect of Non-Compliance with Commissioner for Oaths Rules
Failure by a Commissioner for Oaths to verify annextures attached to an affidavit does not invalidate the affidavit itself. The court may reject the unverified annextures but should consider the affidavit for whatever it is worth without those annextures.
Affidavits — Distinction Between Motion and Supporting Affidavit
A motion supported by an affidavit does not become part of the affidavit. The affidavit contains evidence sworn before a Commissioner for Oaths while the motion contains pleadings. Statements in the motion cannot render the supporting affidavit false.
Preliminary Objections — Procedural Irregularities
Courts should not treat every incorrect procedural act as a nullity unless the incorrect act is of a most fundamental nature. Matters of procedure are not normally of a fundamental nature.

Legislation cited (2)

  • Commissioner for Oaths Rules rule 8
  • Resistance Committees (Judicial Powers) Statute 1988 s.4(3)

Cases cited (5)

  • Feroz Kassam v Commissioner of Land Registration (Misc. Application No. 24 of 1996)
  • James Matsiko v Uganda Railways Corporation (Misc. Application No. 826 of 1998)
  • Uganda Corporation Creamaries Ltd. And Henry Kawalya vs. Reamation Ltd.
  • Probhudas (N) And Co v Standard Bank (1968) EA 670
  • Bitaitana v Kananura (1977) HCB 34

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Lugazi Progressive & Another v Sserunjogi & 4 oers (Misc.App. No.50 Of 2000) (Misc.App. No.50 of 2000) [2000] UGHC 32 (28 December 2000)
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.