Wakilii

Nabukeera Hussein Hanifa v. Kibuule Ronald & Anor (Election Pet. No. 17 of 2011)

High Court · [2011] UGHC 64 · 2011 Application Partly Allowed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Preliminary objection to affidavits in an election petition at scheduling conference
Decision
Preliminary objection dismissed; 1st Respondent permitted to cure defects by filing supplementary affidavits

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 held that the failure to include the name and title of the person administering an oath in the jurat is a curable defect. While Section 5 of the Commissioner for Oaths (Advocates) Act mandates stating the place and date, which was complied with, the omission of the officer's name can be remedied by supplementary affidavits. Courts should take a liberal view of affidavits in election petitions to avoid defeating the petition on technicalities, particularly where the seal of a court is affixed and the omission was by court officers.

Outcome

Preliminary objection dismissed; 1st Respondent permitted to cure defects by filing supplementary affidavits

Facts

The petitioner brought an election petition. At the scheduling conference, the 1st respondent sought to rely on 20 affidavits. The petitioner objected to 18 of these affidavits on the ground that they did not comply with Section 5 of the Commissioner for Oaths (Advocates) Act because the jurat did not disclose the name of the person before whom the oath or affirmation was taken. The contested affidavits showed only a signature and the seal of the Chief Magistrate's Court of Mukono, but the corresponding name of the officer was not disclosed. The petitioner also objected that photocopies of Voters Cards annexed to the affidavits were not sealed and marked as required by Rule 8 of the Commissioners for Oaths Rules. The petitioner submitted that these defects rendered the affidavits incurably defective and inadmissible. The 1st respondent argued that Section 5 only required the place and date to be stated, which was complied with, and that it was the petitioner's burden to prove the person administering the oath was not qualified.

Issues

  1. Whether affidavits that do not disclose the name of the Commissioner for Oaths or Magistrate in the jurat comply with Section 5 of the Commissioner for Oaths (Advocates) Act.
  2. Whether photocopies of Voters Cards attached to affidavits without being sealed and marked contravene Rule 8 of the Commissioners for Oaths Rules.
  3. Whether defects in the jurat render affidavits incurably defective and inadmissible.

Orders

  • The defects in the affidavits are curable.
  • The 1st Respondent is ordered to file supplementary affidavits by the respective Court Officers before whom the oaths or affirmations were made.
  • The order must be complied with before the next hearing of the petition.
  • Costs occasioned to the petitioner by the preliminary objection proceedings are awarded to the petitioner against the 1st Respondent in any event.

Rules and key headnotes

Affidavit Evidence — Jurat Requirements — Curable Defects
The essential requirements under Section 5 of the Commissioner for Oaths (Advocates) Act are to state the place and date where and when the oath or affirmation was taken. While strict compliance with the prescribed jurat form requires inclusion of the name and title of the person before whom the oath was administered, the omission of such name and title is a curable defect and does not render the affidavit incurably defective.
Affidavits — Defective Jurat — Curative Remedies
Where affidavits omit the name and title of the person administering the oath but bear the seal of a court, the defect may be cured by supplementary affidavits from the court officers confirming their participation in administering the oath. Courts have powers to order remedial steps rather than striking out affidavits for formal defects.
Election Petitions — Liberal Construction — Substantive Justice
Election petitions are matters of public interest. Courts should take a liberal view of affidavits in election petitions and should not allow petitions to be defeated on technicalities. Substantive justice under Article 126(2)(e) of the Constitution prevails over technical irregularities in the form of affidavits where no injustice is occasioned.
Affidavit Exhibits — Sealing and Marking Requirements
Rule 8 of the Commissioners for Oaths Rules requires all exhibits to affidavits to be securely sealed to the affidavits under the seal of the Commissioner and marked with serial letters of identification. While this is a legal requirement that facilitates easy identification of annexures and must be adhered to, failure to comply may be treated as a technicality curable under Article 126(2)(e) of the Constitution where the failure does not occasion injustice.

Legislation cited (5)

Cases cited (5)

  • Besigye Kizza v Museveni Yoweri Kaguta & Anor (SC Election Petition No. 1 of 2001)
  • Ateker Ejalu v Ramzaral Hashan Mitha (Soroti HC Misc. App. No. 7 of 2007)
  • Suggan v Roadmaster Cycles (U) Ltd [2002] EA 25
  • Mbayo Jacob Robert v EC & Anor (CA Election Petition Appeal No. 07/06)
  • Egypt Air Corporation v Suffish International Food Processors Ltd & Anor (SCC Application No. 14 of 2000)

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Nabukeera Hussein Hanifa Vs. Kibuule Ronald & Anor (Election Pet. No. 17 of 2011) [2011] UGHC 64 (30 May 2011)
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.