Masiibiri v Sugar Corporation Uganda Limited and Kagiri (CIVIL APPLICATION NO.17 OF 2001)

Observed later treatment

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.

Holding

The court held that documents filed by an advocate who lacks a valid practicing certificate, outside the period of grace, are invalid and incapable of commencing a valid application. Where a material issue of fact is raised in an affidavit, it must be challenged by an affidavit in reply and not from the bar at the hearing. Since the unchallenged affidavit evidence established that the notice of motion was signed by an advocate, Nathan Twinomugisha, who had no practicing certificate at the material time, the application was incompetent. The court struck out the application with costs to the respondent.

Outcome

Application struck out as incompetent with costs to the respondent

Facts

The applicant filed an application seeking to set aside a consent judgment entered on 12 September 2000, for taxation of her bill of costs, and for costs of the application. The notice of motion was signed by someone on behalf of M/s Paul Tusubira & Co. Advocates. The respondent's advocate raised a preliminary objection, relying on an affidavit by Paul Kiapi deponing that the notice of motion was actually signed by Nathan Twinomugisha, who did not hold a valid practicing certificate in March 2001 when he signed it. A letter from the Chief Registrar confirmed that Twinomugisha last renewed his practicing certificate on 18 May 2000. The applicant filed no affidavit in reply to challenge these assertions. The applicant's counsel attempted to dispute the matter from the bar, conceding that documents filed by an advocate without a practicing certificate are invalid, but contending there was no proof Twinomugisha signed the application.

Issues

1. Whether the application was competent given that it was allegedly filed by an advocate without a valid practicing certificate.
2. Whether a material issue of fact raised in an affidavit can be challenged from the bar without an affidavit in reply.

Orders

• The application is struck out.
• Costs awarded to the respondent.

Rules and key headnotes

Cases cited (2)

• H.G. Gandesha & Another v G.J. Lutaya (Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 14 of 1989)
• Prof. Syed Huq v The Islamic University in Uganda (Civil Appeal No. 47 of 1995)

Cases citing this judgment (1)

How later Ugandan judgments in the Wakilii corpus have cited this case. Treatment labels come from Sequitur — Uganda’s citator — each backed by a verbatim span from the citing judgment, and are not an assertion that this case is, or is not, good law.

• Iyamulemye v AG [2014] UGSC 9

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