Wakilii

Mukisa v Attorney General & 25 Others (Miscellaneous Application 14 of 2022)

High Court · [2024] UGCOMMC 365 · 2024 Application Dismissed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Application for review of a ruling dismissing the main suit (Civil Suit No. 733 of 2015) on preliminary objection
Decision
Application for review dismissed

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 application for review of the ruling dismissing Civil Suit No. 733 of 2015 failed. The court found no error apparent on the face of the record nor sufficient cause analogous to grounds for review. The applicant's objections to the competence of affidavits in reply were overruled — deponents need not show formal authorization beyond being called by the party to give evidence, and identical affidavits are not invalid per se. The applicant's challenge to the dismissal was found to be a challenge to the merits of the ruling rather than an identifiable procedural error, making appeal the proper remedy, not review.

Outcome

Application for review dismissed

Facts

The applicant, a self-represented litigant, brought Miscellaneous Application No. 14 of 2022 seeking to set aside the dismissal of Civil Suit No. 733 of 2015. The main suit had been dismissed by Justice Wabwire on 4 June 2021 following a preliminary objection. The dismissal was on grounds that the suit did not meet criteria for public interest litigation and that the plaint did not disclose a cause of action for failing to plead particulars of fraud and negligence as required by Order 6 Rule 3 CPR. The applicant contended the dismissal was on technicalities, offended jurisprudence and equity, and denied justice to millions. The applicant also challenged the competence of several affidavits filed in reply, alleging lack of authority to depone, identical content across multiple affidavits, improper representation by external and internal advocates. The respondents opposed the application, contending the dismissal was lawful, the application lacked merit, and no sufficient cause for review existed.

Issues

  1. Whether the affidavits in reply filed by certain respondents were competent for lack of authority to depone.
  2. Whether the affidavits in reply filed for certain respondents were incompetent for being identical or similar.
  3. Whether the external advocates representing the respondents were properly instructed.
  4. Whether internal advocates of the 2nd and 3rd Respondents could properly represent them in court.
  5. Whether the dismissal of Civil Suit No. 733 of 2015 should be reviewed and the suit reinstated for hearing on merits.
  6. Whether there was an error apparent on the face of the record in the ruling dismissing the main suit.
  7. Whether sufficient cause existed to warrant review of the dismissal order.

Orders

  • Application dismissed.
  • Each party to bear their own costs.

Rules and key headnotes

Civil Procedure — Evidence by Affidavit — Competence to Depone — No Requirement for Formal Authorization
A person may depone an affidavit on behalf of a party without formal written authorization provided they are called by that party to give evidence. The requirement for written authorization under Order 3 Rules 1 and 5 CPR applies to appearance or acts in furtherance of litigation, not to the presentation of evidence by way of affidavit.
Civil Procedure — Evidence by Affidavit — Identical or Similar Affidavits — Not Invalid Per Se
Identical or similar affidavits are not, by that fact alone, liable to be struck out. Where a party contends that identical affidavits are not authentic or independent, they may cross-examine the deponents. Mere resemblance of content is not grounds for rejection absent evidence of impropriety, falsehood, or abuse of process.
Civil Procedure — Affidavits — Defects and Clerical Errors — Liberal Approach
Courts should take a liberal approach to minor and negligible defects or clerical errors in affidavits. Errors which are not material will be ignored in the interests of justice, and a mistake by counsel should not be visited upon the litigant.
Civil Procedure — Representation by Advocates — Authority to Act — No Obligation to Volunteer Board Resolution
An advocate has no obligation to volunteer evidence of instructions such as a board resolution unless the party challenging representation establishes by evidence beyond mere allegation that the advocate was not duly instructed. A board resolution is not a necessary prerequisite for commencing a suit, and instructions may be given orally, by letter, email, or through a panel system.
Civil Procedure — Review of Judgments — Grounds for Review — Error Apparent on Face of Record
An error apparent on the face of the record must be self-evident, glaring, and not require extensive argument or investigation to establish. A mere erroneous decision or a wrong view is not ground for review though it may be ground for appeal. Where a court reaches a wrong conclusion of law, the proper remedy is appeal, not review, as review may not be exercised on the ground that the decision was erroneous on merits.
Civil Procedure — Review of Judgments — Sufficient Reason — Must Be Analogous to Statutory Grounds
A 'sufficient reason' for review under Order 46 Rule 1 CPR must be at least analogous (ejusdem generis) to discovery of new evidence or error apparent on the record, involving catastrophic error in the proceedings outside the merits which renders the outcome grossly unjust. The mere fact that a matter may be of public interest does not constitute sufficient reason for review.
Civil Procedure — Review of Judgments — Distinction from Appeal — Limited Purpose
An application for review has a limited purpose and cannot be allowed to be an appeal in disguise. A review may be granted to correct an apparent error or omission by the court, but may not be exercised on the ground that the decision was erroneous on merits, which is the province of an appellate court.

Legislation cited (25)

Cases cited (25)

  • Mukisa Biscuits v West End Distributors (1969 EA 696)
  • Banco Arabe Espanol v Bank of Uganda (SCCA No. 8 of 1998)
  • Kasaala Growers Cooperative Society v Kakooza Jonathan & Another (SCCA No. 19 of 2020)
  • George Lubega v Nampinga Theresa (CACA No. 235 of 2023)
  • ATC Uganda Limited v Smile Communications Uganda Limited (HCMA No. 621 of 2023)
  • LK Enterprises & Others v ABSA Bank Uganda Limited (HCMA No. 404 of 2024)
  • University Academic Staff Union & Anor v Frankline Kaburu Kinoti & 3 Ors (2022) KECA 868
  • Kasimir Wesonga & Anor v Wanga CACA 25/1986 (Kenya)
  • Fredrick Alwanga Amungu v Republic (2018) KEHC 9646 (KLR)
  • Jai Plastics v Union of India (Writ Petition 818 of 2020)
  • Force Motors Limited v Poona Employees Union Writ Petition No. 2907 of 2006
  • Kabale Housing Estate Tenants Association v Kabale Municipal Local Government Council (SC Civil Application No. 15 of 2013)
  • Danish Mercantile Co. Ltd v. Beaumont & Anor [1951]
  • Jules Delanhaije & Others v Robin Kasolo (HCMA No. 1221 of 2017)
  • Moneylenders Association Of Uganda v URSB (HCMA No. 1 of 2019)
  • Night Nagujja v Namuwonge Agnes & Others (HCMA No. 1878 of 2021)
  • National Insurance Corporation v Mugenyi and Company Advocates (1987 HCB 28)
  • Sarwan Singh v Micheal Notkin (1952 EACA 117)
  • Proline Soccer Academy Ltd v Lawrence Mulindwa and 4 Others (HCMA No. 45 of 2009)
  • Advocates Coalition for Development and Environment and 4 Others v Attorney General and Another (Constitutional Petition No. 14 of 2011)
  • Farid Meghani v Uganda Revenue Authority (HCCA No. 6 of 2021)
  • Colleb Katorogo & Another v GroFin SGB & Another (HCMA No. 534 of 2021)
  • Nyamogo and Nyamogo Advocates v Kago (2001 EA 173)
  • Harry Ssempa v Kambagambire David (HCCS No. 408 of 2014)
  • Lyamuleme David v Attorney General (SCCA No. 4 of 2013)

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Mukisa v Attorney General & 25 Others (Miscellaneous Application 14 of 2022) [2024] UGCommC 365 (23 December 2024)
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.