Wakilii

Nabulya Edisa v Nakyanzi Robina and Another (Civil Revision 2 of 2022)

High Court · [2025] UGHC 936 · 2025 Application Dismissed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Civil revision application seeking to set aside judgment of Magistrate's Court
Decision
Application dismissed for want of proper affidavit; applicant given 14 days to file complete affidavit

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 High Court found that the applicant's civil revision application was fatally defective for want of a proper affidavit in support, as the affidavit filed was incomplete and lacked the first pages containing substantive averments. Although such defects are curable, the applicant failed to remedy the defect despite being granted an opportunity by the court. The court directed the applicant to file a complete affidavit within 14 days.

Outcome

Application dismissed for want of proper affidavit; applicant given 14 days to file complete affidavit

Facts

The applicant filed a civil revision application under Section 33 of the Judicature Act, Section 83 of the Civil Procedure Act and Order 52 Rules 1 & 3 of the Civil Procedure Rules seeking to set aside the judgment in Civil Suit No. 012 of 2020. The respondents did not file a reply or appear in court despite being served. The court granted leave for the application to proceed ex parte. However, the court noted that the affidavit in support filed by the applicant was incomplete, containing only the last page with the jurat and lacking the first pages with substantive averments. The court gave the applicant an opportunity to file a complete affidavit, but the applicant failed to do so.

Issues

  1. Whether the application can proceed without a complete affidavit in support.
  2. Whether the defect in the affidavit is curable and whether the applicant should be given an opportunity to remedy it.

Orders

  • The Applicant is directed to file a complete affidavit in support of the application within 14 days of this Ruling.
  • The complete affidavit should be served on the Respondents within 14 days of this Ruling.

Rules and key headnotes

Civil Procedure — Affidavits — Requirements for Valid Affidavit — Incomplete Affidavit
An affidavit presented before court must contain all essential components including commencement, averments, statement of truth, attestation clause, and signatures. Where an affidavit is incomplete and lacks substantive pages containing averments, it cannot represent the sworn testimony of the deponent and lacks probative value.
Civil Procedure — Affidavits — Defective Affidavits — Power of Court to Cure Defects
A defect in the jurat or irregularity in the form of an affidavit does not necessarily vitiate the affidavit in view of Article 126(2)(e) of the Constitution. A judge has power to order that defects be remedied and may penalise the offending party in costs. However, courts cannot condone a party's indolence or refusal to comply with clear procedural requirements after being given an opportunity to rectify.
Civil Procedure — Notice of Motion — Evidential Foundation — Effect of Absence of Valid Affidavit
An affidavit constitutes evidence and forms the evidential foundation of applications brought by Notice of Motion under Order 52 of the Civil Procedure Rules. Without a valid affidavit in support, there is no foundation upon which an application can stand.

Legislation cited (4)

Cases cited (3)

  • Namutebi Matilda Vs Semanda Simon and others Miscellaneous Application No. 430 arising from 211 of 2021
  • Attorney General of the Republic of Burundi Vs Niyongabo Theodre and Another Application No. 06 of 2022
  • Saggu v Roadmaster Cycles (U) Ltd (2002) 1 EA 258

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Nabulya Edisa v Nakyanzi Robina and Another (Civil Revision 2 of 2022) [2025] UGHC 936 (15 September 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.