Wakilii

Patel v Agard and Another (Civil Case No. 24 of 1951)

East African Court of Appeal · [1951] EACA 344 · 1951 Application Dismissed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Application for summary judgment on liquidated claim
Decision
Summary judgment application dismissed; defendant granted leave to file defence

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

A supporting affidavit for summary judgment under Order XXXV rule 2 must testify to the state of facts as at the date of the motion which it supports. An affidavit filed for a withdrawn application cannot support a subsequent fresh application, as it does not establish that the debt remained outstanding at the date of the new application.

Outcome

Summary judgment application dismissed; defendant granted leave to file defence

Facts

The plaintiff applied for summary judgment for Sh. 3,673 under Order XXXV rule 2 on 18th April 1951, supported by an affidavit dated that day stating the defendant was indebted. The application was withdrawn by consent on 3rd May 1951, with leave granted to the defendant to file a defence within 15 days. On 16th May 1951, the plaintiff made a second application for summary judgment but filed no fresh affidavit, relying on the affidavit from the withdrawn application.

Issues

  1. Whether an affidavit filed in support of a withdrawn application for summary judgment can support a subsequent fresh application for summary judgment.

Orders

  • Application dismissed with costs.
  • Respondent granted 15 days to file a defence.

Rules and key headnotes

Summary Judgment — Supporting Affidavit — Temporal Requirements
An affidavit in support of an application for summary judgment must testify to the state of facts as at the date of the motion which it supports, not at the date of a prior withdrawn application.
Summary Judgment — Fresh Application After Withdrawal
Where an application for summary judgment is withdrawn and a subsequent fresh application is made, it constitutes a new motion requiring a fresh supporting affidavit, not merely an amending motion.

Legislation cited (1)

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Patel v Agard and Another (Civil Case No. 24 of 1951) [1951] EACA 344 (1 January 1951)
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.