Wakilii

Mwesigwa Eremigio Masagazi and Naggayi Annet v Attorney General and Others (Miscellaneous Cause No. 2 of 2025)

High Court · [2025] UGHC 771 · 2025 Application Granted AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Interlocutory ruling on objection to late-filed affidavit and application to compel production of documents for inspection
Decision
Application to compel production of documents granted; affidavit filed out of time admitted with leave to file rejoinder

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 admitted an affidavit filed out of time, applying the principle that procedural rules are handmaids of justice and should not defeat substantive rights. The court ordered the respondents to produce for inspection CCTV footage, deployment letters, and UPDF operational documents referenced in their affidavits, holding that documents expressly referred to in pleadings or affidavits are liable to inspection under Order 10 Rule 15, and that such inspection must precede determination of the matter.

Outcome

Application to compel production of documents granted; affidavit filed out of time admitted with leave to file rejoinder

Facts

The applicants filed a miscellaneous cause (the nature of which is not detailed in this ruling). On 3rd July 2025, the court gave the respondents until 23rd July 2025 to file additional affidavits in reply. The respondents failed to file by that date and only filed on 19th August 2025. The applicants objected to the late filing and also sought to compel production of documents referenced in the respondents' affidavits, including CCTV footage allegedly showing a theft incident, the third respondent's deployment letter, and UPDF operational procedures and standing orders. The respondents argued the affidavit was delayed due to police bureaucracy and that the requested documents were irrelevant or not in their possession. The applicants contended their son was a 'wrong target' and that the documents were essential to determine whether the third respondent (a UPDF soldier) acted within his mandate when he shot the deceased.

Issues

  1. Whether an affidavit in reply filed out of time without leave of court is admissible.
  2. Whether the respondents should be compelled to produce documents for inspection under Order 10 Rules 15 and 16 of the Civil Procedure Rules.

Orders

  • The time within which the respondents had to file their additional affidavit in reply is enlarged such that the affidavit filed on 23rd July 2025 is validated.
  • Counsel for the applicants is granted leave to file an affidavit in rejoinder by 2nd September 2025.
  • The respondents shall produce the following documents for inspection by 5th September 2025: (i) CCTV footage referred to in paragraph 5 of the second respondent's affidavit and paragraph 8 of the third respondent's affidavit; (ii) the third respondent's deployment letter to the residence of the second respondent; (iii) UPDF operational procedures (relevant excerpts); (iv) UPDF Standing Orders (relevant excerpts) containing the duties of a bodyguard.

Rules and key headnotes

Civil Procedure — Affidavits — Filing Out of Time — Discretion to Admit
Procedural rules are handmaids of justice and should not be applied rigidly to defeat substantive rights. Where an affidavit is filed out of time without leave, the court may exercise its discretion under Section 98 of the Civil Procedure Act, Section 37 of the Judicature Act, and Article 126(2)(e) of the Constitution to enlarge time and admit the affidavit in the interest of justice, particularly where the matter is still at an interlocutory stage and all parties are putting their paperwork in order.
Evidence — Discovery and Inspection — Documents Referred to in Affidavits — Liability to Inspection
Under Order 10 Rule 15 of the Civil Procedure Rules, documents expressly referenced in pleadings or affidavits filed by a party are liable to inspection by the opposing party. A party who introduces documents into the case by mentioning them in his own affidavit cannot subsequently object to their inspection.
Evidence — Discovery and Inspection — Relevance and Materiality — Timing of Inspection
The inspection of relevant documents must precede the determination of the matter. An application for inspection of documents under Order 10 Rule 15 is not premature merely because the substantive matter has not yet been heard. Documents central to disputed facts, such as CCTV footage relevant to identification or deployment letters relevant to scope of duty, are material and must be produced for inspection.
Civil Procedure — Discovery and Inspection — Attorney General as Representative of Government — Deemed Possession
Under Article 250 of the Constitution, the Attorney General is the legal representative of the Government. Where documents are in the custody of a government entity such as the Uganda Police Force, the Attorney General is deemed to have possession and power to produce them for inspection. A respondent represented by the Attorney General cannot avoid production by claiming the documents are held by another government agency.

Legislation cited (11)

Cases cited (3)

  • Godfrey Magezi and Another v Sudhir Ruparelia (Supreme Court Miscellaneous Application No. 6 of 2003)
  • Kasangaki Diana v Fulgensia Tumwesigye (Civil Application No. 21 of 2023)
  • Sibamanyo Estates Ltd v Equity Bank Uganda Ltd and 3 Others (High Court Miscellaneous Application No. 0730 of 2022)

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Mwesigwa Eremigio Masagazi and Naggayi Annet v Attorney General and Others (Miscellaneous Cause No. 2 of 2025) [2025] UGHC 771 (25 August 2025)
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.