Wakilii

Nalongo Kiwanuka and 4 Others v Read International Organization and 2 Others (Miscellaneous Application No. 2747 of 2024)

High Court · [2025] UGHCLD 236 · 2025 Application Dismissed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Application to set aside dismissal of civil appeal and reinstate the appeal
Decision
Application dismissed for being incompetent and seeking to reinstate an illegality

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 dismissed an application to set aside the dismissal of a civil appeal and reinstate it. The court found that the affidavit in support contained material falsehoods regarding instructions to counsel, rendering the application incompetent under Order 52 of the Civil Procedure Rules. Additionally, the underlying memorandum of appeal was held to be an illegality for violating the Illiterates Protection Act and Civil Procedure Rules, as it was signed by counsel on behalf of illiterate appellants without proper certification that the document was read over and explained to them.

Outcome

Application dismissed for being incompetent and seeking to reinstate an illegality

Facts

The applicants filed Civil Appeal No. 136 of 2017 on 4 December 2017. They claimed to have instructed Counsel Kibirango Erastus to represent them, who allegedly abandoned the case and advised them to settle through mediation. A purported consent was drafted but never filed. The appeal was dismissed for want of prosecution. The applicants sought to set aside the dismissal order and reinstate the appeal. The respondents opposed, alleging that the 2nd applicant was deceased, the affidavit contained falsehoods, and the underlying memorandum of appeal was an illegality. Evidence showed that Counsel Kibirango denied receiving instructions from the applicants. The memorandum of appeal was signed by counsel on behalf of illiterate appellants without proper certification under the Illiterates Protection Act.

Issues

  1. Whether the Application is a nullity for having been instituted in the names of the 2nd respondent who is a deceased person?
  2. Whether the affidavit in support of the Application should be struck out for containing material falsehoods and offending the provisions of Order 19 rule 1 of the Civil Procedure Rules?
  3. Whether the Application is incompetent for being supported with a fundamentally and incurably defective affidavit in support?
  4. Whether the 5th Applicant had no locus standi to bring the Application on behalf of or in the names of other Applicants?
  5. Whether the 4th Applicant had no locus standi to bring the Application seeking to reinstate Civil Appeal No. 136 of 2017?
  6. Whether the Memorandum of Appeal in Civil Appeal No. 136 of 2017 which this Application seeks to reinstate is an illegality?

Orders

  • The affidavit in support of the Application is expunged from the motion and disregarded.
  • The Application is dismissed.
  • Each party shall bear their own costs.

Rules and key headnotes

Affidavits — Material Falsehoods — Effect on Application
Where an affidavit in support of an application contains material falsehoods that go to the fundamental grounds of the applicant's case and are not rebutted in a rejoinder, the affidavit must be expunged and the application becomes incompetent for lack of proper supporting evidence as required by Order 52 Rules 1 and 3 of the Civil Procedure Rules.
Affidavits — Burden of Denial — Presumption of Admission
Where facts are sworn to in an affidavit and the opposing party fails to deny them in their reply, those facts are presumed to have been accepted. The burden to deny allegations in an affidavit lies on the party against whom the allegations are made.
Illiterates Protection Act — Memorandum of Appeal — Mandatory Requirements
A memorandum of appeal signed by counsel on behalf of illiterate appellants without a jurat certifying that the document was read over and explained to the illiterates before they appended their marks constitutes an illegality that renders the memorandum and the appeal a nullity. The Illiterates Protection Act provisions are mandatory and intended to protect illiterates from being bound by documents they do not understand.
Locus Standi — Party to Appeal — Right to Seek Reinstatement
A person who did not sign a memorandum of appeal and whose name does not appear with a signature on the memorandum was not a party to the appeal and has no locus standi to bring an application to reinstate that appeal after its dismissal.
Illegality — Court's Duty — Refusal to Sanction Illegality
An illegality can be brought to the attention of court at any time during proceedings and once established, it overrides any pleading relevant to the matter. A court cannot sanction or promote an illegality by allowing an application that seeks to reinstate proceedings founded on an illegal document.
Death of Party — Procedure — Proof Required
Where it is alleged that a party to proceedings is deceased, proof of death by death certificate or other evidence must be presented to satisfy the court. In the absence of such proof, the court cannot find that the party died before institution of the proceedings.
Pleadings — Signature Requirements — Counsel Signing as Party
Every pleading must be signed by an advocate or by the party if suing or defending in person. Where counsel signs a memorandum of appeal not as advocate for the appellants but as the appellants themselves, without proper authority or compliance with the Illiterates Protection Act, the memorandum offends Order 6 Rule 26 of the Civil Procedure Rules.

Legislation cited (18)

Cases cited (16)

  • Babubhai Dhanji Pathak v Zainab Mrekwe (1941) 1 EA 24
  • Wasswa Kitata Kibirango and Another v Ssebiso Pater (Miscellaneous Application No. 2716 of 2023)
  • Uganda Telecom Limited v ZTE Corporation (Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 03 of 2017)
  • Bet City (U) Ltd v Swangz Avenue (U) Ltd (Miscellaneous Application No. 1177 of 2020)
  • Joseph Mulenga v Photos Focus (U) Ltd (1996) VI KALR 10
  • Chopa Rwakijuma Patrick v Nyakwera Baguma (Miscellaneous Application No. 061 of 2023)
  • Besigye Kiiza v Museveni Yoweri Kaguta and Another (Election Petition No. 1 of 2001)
  • Rutuka Francis and 5 Others v Eliphas Ndamagye (Court of Appeal Civil Appeal No. 111 of 2017)
  • Prof. Oloka Onyango and Others v Attorney General (Constitutional Petition No. 6 of 2014)
  • H.G Gandesha and Another v G.J Lutaaya (Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 14 of 1989)
  • Nakelema Binaisa and 3 Others v Mucunguzi Myers (Miscellaneous Application No. 460 of 2013)
  • Grace Namulondo and 3 Others v John Johns Serwanga Salongo and 3 Others (Miscellaneous Cause No. 001 of 2019)
  • Kasaala Growers Co-operative Society v Kakooza and Another (Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 19 of 2010)
  • Stanbic Bank Uganda Ltd v Ssenyonjo Moses and Another (Civil Appeal No. 147 of 2015)
  • Harriet Nabibiito Nakato v David Lukanga (High Court Civil Suit No. 618 of 2018)
  • Makula International v Cardinal Nsubuga (1982) HCB 11

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Nalongo_Kiwanuka_and_4_Others_v_Read_International_Organization_and_2_Others_(Miscellaneous_Application_No._2747_of_2024)_[2025]_UGHCLD_236_(24_June_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.