Wakilii

Male Mabirizi v Attorney General (Miscellaneous Application No. 920 of 2021)

High Court · [2022] UGHCCD 48 · 2022 Application Dismissed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Application for leave to cross-examine a deponent on affidavit evidence, arising from Miscellaneous Application No. 843 of 2021, itself arising from Miscellaneous Cause No. 287 of 2021
Decision
Application for leave to cross-examine dismissed with costs

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 dismissed the application for leave to cross-examine a deponent on affidavit evidence. The discretion to order cross-examination under Order 19 rule 2 of the Civil Procedure Rules must be exercised judiciously and sparingly. The applicant's grounds lacked merit, the clarifications sought had already been provided in the affidavit in reply, and the application was made belatedly after submissions had been filed. The court found the application was intended solely to delay proceedings.

Outcome

Application for leave to cross-examine dismissed with costs

Facts

The applicant brought an application seeking leave to cross-examine Mr. Jimmy Oburu Odoi, Principal State Attorney, on his affidavit evidence. The applicant contended that Mr. Oburu's professional capacity in information technology needed testing, that his averments were hearsay, that his affidavits contained contradictions, and that his conduct was unprofessional and amounted to abuse of public powers. Mr. Oburu responded that the application was redundant as he had already addressed the applicant's concerns in his affidavit in reply. The application arose from Miscellaneous Application No. 843 of 2021, which itself arose from Miscellaneous Cause No. 287 of 2021. All parties had already filed submissions when this application was brought.

Issues

  1. Whether the court should grant leave for the attendance and cross-examination of Mr. Jimmy Oburu Odoi, Principal State Attorney, on his affidavit evidence.
  2. Whether the costs of the application should be personally paid by Mr. Jimmy Oburu Odoi.

Orders

  • Application dismissed.
  • Costs awarded to the respondent.

Rules and key headnotes

Civil Procedure — Cross-Examination of Deponents — Discretionary Nature of Court's Power
The power to order the attendance of a deponent for cross-examination under Order 19 rule 2 of the Civil Procedure Rules is discretionary in nature and must be exercised judiciously and not whimsically.
Civil Procedure — Cross-Examination of Deponents — Circumstances for Granting Leave
Leave to cross-examine a deponent on affidavit evidence may be granted where there are special circumstances and adequate material showing that in the interest of justice it is fair and just to order cross-examination, considering factors including the importance of the issue, whether cross-examination will unduly delay the trial, and whether cross-examination is likely to elucidate the relevant issues in controversy.
Civil Procedure — Cross-Examination of Deponents — Timing and Abuse of Process
An application to cross-examine a deponent should be made promptly and not belatedly after the court has given directions to file submissions and parties have complied. A belated application made with the sole aim of delaying proceedings amounts to abuse of court process and will be dismissed.

Legislation cited (8)

Cases cited (3)

  • Vitabiotics Limited and Harleys Limited v Ripples Pharmaceuticals Limited and Metro Pharmaceuticals Limited (Civil Case No. 118 of 2015)
  • Lt. Gen. (Rtd) Henry Tumukunde v Attorney General and Grace Akullo (Miscellaneous Application No. 489 of 2020)
  • GGR vs H-PS [2012]eKLR

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Male Mabirizi v Attorney General (Miscellaneous Application No. 920 of 2021) [2022] UGHCCD 48 (27 January 2022)
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.