Wakilii

Mangafu and 12 Others v Agilis Ranch 20 and 21 Limited and 3 Others (Misc Cause No. 11 of 2020)

High Court · [2022] UGHCCD 212 · 2022 Application Dismissed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Application for enforcement of human rights and freedoms under Article 50 of the Constitution and the Human Rights (Enforcement) Act 2019, brought by way of Amended Notice of Motion
Decision
Application dismissed on preliminary objections without reaching the 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 dismissed the application on multiple preliminary objections. The court held that the application was a disguised representative action that failed to comply with Order 1 rule 8 of the Civil Procedure Rules, as the applicants did not seek leave, did not name the persons they purported to represent, and did not give proper notice. The amended Notice of Motion was filed without supporting affidavits and was served outside the 21-day period prescribed by law without seeking an extension. Thirty affidavits were struck out for having jurats on separate pages, rendering them incurably defective. Most fundamentally, the court held that the Human Rights (Enforcement) Act 2019 could not be applied retrospectively to alleged violations occurring in 2016–2018, before the Act came into force.

Outcome

Application dismissed on preliminary objections without reaching the merits

Facts

Twelve applicants, members of the Nyamalebe Landless Association, claimed they were customary landowners or bonafide occupants of land in Kiryandongo District. They alleged that in December 2016 and February 2018, the 1st Respondent's agents, escorted by armed police officers commanded by the 3rd Respondent, forcibly evicted them and over 300 families. The evictions allegedly involved teargas, live bullets, beatings, arrests, demolition of houses, and destruction of property. The applicants filed an application under Article 50 of the Constitution and the Human Rights (Enforcement) Act 2019 seeking declarations, restitution, and damages. The 1st and 2nd Respondents raised preliminary objections challenging jurisdiction, cause of action, procedural compliance, and the retrospective application of the 2019 Act to events occurring in 2016–2018.

Issues

  1. Whether the High Court has jurisdiction to entertain the application.
  2. Whether the Applicants have a cause of action against the 1st and 2nd Respondents.
  3. Whether the Amended Notice of Motion was filed without affidavits in support and therefore whether it can be sustained.
  4. Whether there are incurably defective affidavits in support of the Application.
  5. Whether the Applicants' amended Notice of Motion is incurably defective for being served out of time.
  6. Whether the Human Rights (Enforcement) Act is applicable to the instant case.

Orders

  • Application dismissed.
  • Thirty affidavits struck off the record for being incurably defective.
  • No order as to costs.

Rules and key headnotes

Representative Actions — Requirements under Order 1 Rule 8 CPR
Where numerous persons having the same interest in a suit wish to sue through representatives, they must comply with Order 1 rule 8 of the Civil Procedure Rules by obtaining leave of court, naming or listing the persons to be represented, obtaining their informed consent, and giving proper notice by personal service or public advertisement as the court directs. A disguised representative action that fails to meet these requirements is incompetent and must be dismissed.
Affidavits — Requirement that Supporting Affidavits be Served with Notice of Motion
Under Order 52 rule 3 of the Civil Procedure Rules, every notice of motion grounded in evidence by affidavit must be served with a copy of the affidavit intended to be used. An amended notice of motion supersedes the original pleading, and the party cannot rely on affidavits filed in support of the superseded original notice. A notice of motion filed and served without any supporting affidavit is incurably defective and must be struck out.
Service of Process — Time Limits under Order 5 Rule 1(2) CPR
Under Order 5 rule 1(2) of the Civil Procedure Rules, a notice of motion must be served within 21 days from the date of issue. The time may be extended on application made within 15 days after expiry of the 21 days, showing sufficient reasons. Service outside the prescribed period without seeking an extension is a legal requirement, not a mere technicality, and the penalty under Order 5 rule 1(3)(c) is dismissal of the application.
Affidavits — Defective Jurats Rendering Affidavits Incurably Defective
Under sections 5 and 6 of the Oaths Act and the Commissioner for Oaths Act, an affidavit must be made before a Commissioner for Oaths, and the jurat must state truly the place and date the oath or affidavit is taken. Where the jurat is typed and signed on a separate page independent of the main body of the affidavit, leaving wide space where the jurat could have fitted, the affidavit is incurably defective and must be struck out, as it raises doubt whether the deponent appeared before the Commissioner for Oaths and whether the deponent read and owned the text.
Retrospective Application of the Human Rights (Enforcement) Act 2019
The Human Rights (Enforcement) Act 2019 cannot be applied retrospectively to enforce rights allegedly violated before the Act came into force in 2019. A statute is presumed to apply only to facts or circumstances that come into existence after the statute's enactment unless the legislature's intention to operate retrospectively appears in clear terms or by necessary implication. An application seeking to enforce human rights violations that occurred in 2016–2018 under the 2019 Act is a non-starter and must be dismissed.
Limits of Section 6(5) of the Human Rights (Enforcement) Act — Procedural Defects vs Substantive Requirements
Section 6(5) of the Human Rights (Enforcement) Act 2019 provides that no suit shall be rejected merely for failure to comply with any procedure, form, or technicality. However, this provision does not permit litigants to circumvent mandatory legal requirements such as compliance with representative action procedures, service within prescribed time limits, or the requirement that affidavits be properly commissioned. Such requirements are not mere technicalities but substantive legal obligations, and non-compliance cannot be cured by section 6(5).
Jurisdiction — High Court vs Constitutional Court under Human Rights (Enforcement) Act
Under section 4 of the Human Rights (Enforcement) Act 2019, the High Court has jurisdiction to hear and determine applications relating to the enforcement or violation of rights and freedoms enshrined in Articles 44 and 45 of the Constitution. A public interest action under rule 5(1)(d) of the Judicature (Fundamental Rights and Other Freedoms) (Enforcement Procedure) Rules 2019 must be filed in the Constitutional Court under rule 7(2), but an application by individuals or a group seeking enforcement of their own human rights under section 3(2)(b) of the Act is properly before the High Court.

Legislation cited (34)

Cases cited (34)

  • Muhindo Morgan v UCC and Another (Misc Cause No. 130 of 2021)
  • Auto Garage v Motokov [1971] EA 514
  • Tororo Cement Co Ltd v Frokina International (Civil Appeal No. 2 of 2001)
  • Kaigana v Babu Boubou [1986] HCB 59
  • Twinamatsiko Onesmus v Agaba Aisa and Another (Election Petition No. 7 of 2021)
  • Hussein Bada v Iganga District Land Board and 3 Others (Misc Application No. 479 of 2011)
  • Orient Bank Ltd v Avi Enterprises Ltd (Civil Appeal No. 2 of 2013)
  • Ali Shafi Investment Group v Abu Dhabi Islamic Bank and 2 Others (Misc Application No. 130 of 2021)
  • Wambewo Simon v Mazelele (Misc Application No. 128 of 2013)
  • Yaya Farajallah v Obur Ronald and 3 Others (Civil Appeal No. 81 of 2018)
  • Ismail Serugo v KCC and Another (Constitutional Appeal No. 2 of 1998)
  • Centre for Law and Peace Uganda and 3 Others v Bank of Uganda and Another (Civil Suit No. 370 of 2017)
  • James Rwanyarare and Others v Attorney General (Constitutional Petition No. 7 of 2002)
  • Buwembo and 2 Others v UTODA Ltd (Civil Suit No. 64 of 2002)
  • Narottam Bhatia and Another v Boutique Shazimi Ltd (Civil Appeal No. 6 of 2009) [2010] UGSC 67
  • Attorney General and Another v Human Rights Awareness and Promotion Forum (Misc Application No. 482 of 2020)
  • Mukuye and Others v Madhvan Group Ltd (Misc Application No. 821 of 2013)
  • Kanyabwera v Tumwebaze [2005] 2 EA 86
  • Viera Vs Viera (California Court of Appeal) [Civ.No.18196. Second Dist. Div. One. Oct.30, 1951]
  • Darsie Vs Darsie 49 Cal. App. 2d 491, 493 [122 P.2d 64]
  • Collins Vs Scott Cal.446, 453 [34P.1085]
  • Bray Vs Lowery 163, Cal. 256, 260, 124 Pac.1004,1006 (1912)
  • Attorney General v Kilembe Mines Ltd and Another (Misc Application No. 702 of 2008)
  • Muhammed Magyambere v Khadil (Misc Application No. 727 of 2011) [2012] UGCommC 15
  • Jayantilal Amratlal Bhimji and Another v Prime Finance Co Ltd (Misc Application No. 467 of 2007)
  • Hon Mujungu Jennifer v Tumwine Anne Mary and Another (Election Petition No. 5 of 2021)
  • Re Central Bank of Kenya and Another [2002] 1 EA 31
  • Bayiga Michael Phillip Lulume v Mutebi David and Another (Election Petition No. 14 of 2016)
  • Twinamasiko Onesimus v Agaba Aisa and Another (Election Petition No. 7 of 2021)
  • Stop & See (U) Ltd v Tropical Africa Bank (Misc Application No. 333 of 2010)
  • Michael Mulo Mulagussi v Peter Katabalo (Misc Application No. 6 of 2016)
  • Joy Kaigana v Dabo Boubou [1986] HCB 58
  • Hon Lukwago Erias and 13 Others v Electoral Commission and 2 Others (Misc Application No. 431 of 2013) [2020] UGHCCD 4
  • Union of India & Ors Vs M.C Punnose [2020] S.C.C, Supreme court of India online

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Mangafu and 12 Others v Agilis Ranch 20 and 21 Limited and 3 Others (Misc Cause No. 11 of 2020) [2022] UGHCCD 212 (20 October 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.