Nabijogo Bulanina v Mwebaza Fred and Others (Civil Suit No. 112 of 2022)

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 High Court ruled on preliminary objections to the plaintiff's witness statement. The court held that the statement was not a joint statement merely because clan members were present during its preparation. However, the use of 'we' in an individual witness statement violates section 59 of the Evidence Act by introducing ambiguity and indirect evidence. The court further held that a lay witness cannot make conclusory statements about fraud, as fraud is a technical legal conclusion requiring proof of specific elements. The witness statement was disregarded and the plaintiff ordered to proceed by oral evidence.

Outcome

Preliminary objections partly upheld; plaintiff's witness statement disregarded; plaintiff to proceed by oral evidence

Facts

The plaintiff, as administratrix of an estate, brought a civil suit against three defendants concerning land. At the hearing on 20 August 2025, when the first plaintiff's witness (PW1) was ready to tender her witness statement as examination in chief, counsel for the first and second defendants raised preliminary objections. The defendants objected to the witness statement on three grounds: that it was a joint statement because PW1 mentioned attending the lawyer's office with clan members; that the statement improperly used the pronoun 'we' in several paragraphs; and that paragraphs 11, 23, 24, 26, and 34 contained improper opinions and legal conclusions about fraud that usurped the court's role. The witness statement was dated 13 June 2024 and signed only by PW1.

Issues

1. Whether PW1's witness statement is a joint statement.
2. Whether the usage of the word 'we' at the beginning of some of the paragraphs in the witness statement is permissible.
3. Whether the witness can make inference to statements of opinion in her witness statement.

Orders

• The objection that PW1's statement is a joint statement is overruled.
• The objection as to the usage of 'We' in the witness statement is upheld.
• The objection to the inclusion of conclusory statements on fraud in the witness statement is upheld.
• The witness statement of PW1, dated 13th June 2024, and any other witness statements containing similar defects, are entirely disregarded.
• The witness and all other witnesses for the plaintiff shall proceed by way of oral evidence on the adjourned date.
• No order as to costs of this objection.

Rules and key headnotes

Legislation cited (7)

• Evidence Act Cap. 8 s.43
• Evidence Act Cap. 8 s.59
• Evidence Act Cap. 8 s.59(a)
• Evidence Act Cap. 8 s.59(d)
• Civil Procedure Rules S.I. 71-1 Order 18 r.4
• Civil Procedure Rules S.I. 71-1 Order 18 r.5A(10)
• Constitution of Uganda Art.126(2)(e)

Cases cited (1)

• Ongwen Anthony and Ojwiya Tonny v Ocaya Michael (Civil Appeal No. 012 of 2017)

Cases citing this judgment (2)

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.

• Mugerwa Denis and Others v Nyanzi Abubakar Alias Baker (Miscellaneous Application No. 621 of 2025)
• Nyanzi v Mugerwa & 8 Others (Miscellaneous Application 641 of 2024)

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