Wakilii

Ogole Yusuf v Zumura Issa (Miscellaneous Application No. 0007 of 2026)

High Court · [2026] UGHC 720 · 2026 Application Dismissed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Application for leave to file notice of appeal, memorandum of appeal, and record of appeal out of time, arising from Civil Appeal No. 0030 of 2024
Decision
Application dismissed on preliminary objection due to fatal defects in the supporting 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

Held that an affidavit is fatally defective where the deponent never appeared before the Commissioner for Oaths who commissioned it, in violation of sections 5 and 6 of the Commissioner for Oaths (Advocates) Act, section 6 of the Oaths Act, and Rule 7 of the Commissioner for Oaths Rules. Further held that where an illiterate deponent's affidavit lacks a certificate of translation as required by the Illiterates Protection Act, the affidavit does not meet statutory requirements and must be rejected. Application dismissed.

Outcome

Application dismissed on preliminary objection due to fatal defects in the supporting affidavit.

Facts

The Applicant sought leave to file and serve a notice of appeal, memorandum of appeal, and record of appeal out of time, arising from Civil Appeal No. 0030 of 2024, which itself arose from Civil Suit No. 0020 of 2023 in the Chief Magistrate's Court of Yumbe. The Applicant, who was self-represented at trial, lost at trial and instructed lawyers to appeal. A notice of appeal was filed on 22 November 2024, but the appeal was subsequently struck out for failure to file the memorandum and record of appeal. The Applicant deposed an affidavit in support dated 9 February 2026, claiming he was illiterate and sick at the time. During cross-examination, the Applicant testified that he deposed the affidavit in his lawyer's office in Yumbe in the presence of his son, the lawyer's clerk, and the lawyer himself (Counsel Odama Henry). The affidavit bore the stamp and signature of a Commissioner for Oaths from Kazimoto and Company Advocates in Arua. Counsel Odama claimed the Commissioner traveled from Arua to Yumbe to commission the affidavit due to the Applicant's poor health. The Respondent raised a preliminary objection that the affidavit was not properly commissioned and violated the Oaths Act and Commissioner for Oaths Act. The Respondent also argued that the affidavit lacked a certificate of translation as required for illiterate deponents under the Illiterates Protection Act.

Issues

  1. Whether the affidavit in support of the application is fatally defective for non-compliance with the Commissioner for Oaths (Advocates) Act and the Oaths Act.
  2. Whether the affidavit complies with the Illiterates Protection Act where the deponent is illiterate.

Orders

  • Application dismissed.
  • Each party to bear its own costs.

Rules and key headnotes

Civil Procedure — Affidavits — Commissioner for Oaths — Requirement for Deponent to Appear Before Commissioner
A deponent must personally appear before the Commissioner for Oaths and take an oath to the contents of his or her affidavit for it to be valid. Where a Commissioner for Oaths commissions an affidavit without seeing the deponent, the affidavit is fatally defective for non-compliance with sections 5 and 6 of the Commissioner for Oaths (Advocates) Act, section 6 of the Oaths Act, and Rule 7 of the Commissioner for Oaths Rules.
Evidence — Affidavits — Illiterate Deponents — Requirement for Certificate of Translation
Where an illiterate deponent appends a thumbprint to an affidavit, the law mandates that the person who read over and explained the contents to the deponent must write their true and full name and address as a witness and translator. A statement or certificate of translation must be attached to the affidavit. In the absence of such a certificate, the affidavit does not meet the statutory requirements of the Illiterates Protection Act and must be rejected.
Civil Procedure — Preliminary Objections — Nature and Effect
A preliminary objection raises a pure point of law argued on the assumption that all facts pleaded by the other side are correct. It cannot be raised if any fact must be ascertained or if what is sought is the exercise of judicial discretion. Where a preliminary objection succeeds and disposes of the application, the application must be dismissed.
Civil Procedure — Applications — Defective Affidavits — Effect on Application
An application must be supported by affidavit evidence. Where there is one affidavit in support of an application and that affidavit is found invalid, the application is not supported by an affidavit and cannot stand. Such an application ought to be dismissed.

Legislation cited (13)

Cases cited (9)

  • Mukisa Biscuit Manufacturing Ltd v West End Distributors Ltd (1969) E.A. 697
  • NAS Airport Services Ltd v Attorney General of Kenya [1959] EA 53
  • Gunya Company Ltd v Attorney General (High Court Civil Suit No. 031 of 2011)
  • Musa Nsimbe v Joseph Nanjubi and Others (Miscellaneous Application No. 23 of 2014)
  • Kamugisha Anatoli and Another v H & L Exporters (U) Ltd (Miscellaneous Application No. 2034 of 2023)
  • Kakooza John Baptist v Electoral Commission and Yiga Anthony (Supreme Court Election Petition Appeal No. 11 of 2007)
  • Musa Nsimbe v Joseph Nanjubi and Others (High Court Miscellaneous Application No. 23 of 2014)
  • Kasaala Growers Co-operative Society v Kakooza and Kalemera Edson (Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 19 of 2010)
  • Ssali Samuel v Gladys K. Rwamwamba (High Court Miscellaneous Application No. 514 of 2014)

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Ogole Yusuf v Zumura Issa (Miscellaneous Application No. 0007 of 2026) [2026] UGHC 720 (1 July 2026)
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.