Wakilii

Pearline Investment Ltd v Kampala Capital City Authority & Anor (HCT-00-CC-MC 23 of 2011)

High Court · [2012] UGCOMMC 82 · 2012 Preliminary Objections Dismissed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Ruling on preliminary objections in a judicial review application seeking orders of mandamus and prohibition
Decision
Preliminary objections dismissed; main application to proceed to hearing

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 affidavits in support of a Notice of Motion do not require stamp duty under the Stamps Act because they do not create, transfer, limit, or extend a right or liability. The court further held that the respondent filed and served the affidavit in reply within the 56-day period prescribed by the Judicature (Judicial Review) Rules. Both preliminary objections were overruled and the parties ordered to argue the main application.

Outcome

Preliminary objections dismissed; main application to proceed to hearing

Facts

Pearline Investments Ltd applied to Kampala Capital City Authority to lease Plot 2 Mabua Road, Kololo. On 20 July 2010, KCCA's council resolved through its contracts committee to dispose of the land to the applicant. A valuation was conducted in April 2011 valuing the property at UGX 3,346,000,000. The matter was referred to the contracts committee for final disposal on 20 April 2011. On 1 July 2011, the Executive Director ordered the contracts committee to cease operations and the disposal process was stayed. The applicant brought a judicial review application seeking orders of mandamus and prohibition. Two preliminary objections were raised: the respondent objected that the applicant's affidavit in support was not stamped; the applicant objected that the respondent had not served the affidavit in reply.

Issues

  1. Whether an affidavit in support of a judicial review application must be stamped under the Stamps Act to be admissible in evidence.
  2. Whether the respondent failed to serve the affidavit in reply within the prescribed time and whether the applicant should be allowed to proceed ex parte.

Orders

  • Both preliminary objections overruled.
  • Parties ordered to argue the main application on 03/10/12.

Rules and key headnotes

Civil Procedure — Stamp Duty — Affidavits in Support of Applications — Whether Stamp Duty Required
An affidavit in support of a Notice of Motion which is pending before court does not create, transfer, limit, extend or impose a right or liability and is therefore not an instrument chargeable with stamp duty under the Stamps Act. The affidavits referred to in Item 4 of the First Schedule to the Stamps Act are those that confer a right or liability on a party, not affidavits forming part of interlocutory pleadings.
Judicial Review — Service of Affidavit in Reply — Time Limits under Judicature (Judicial Review) Rules
Under Rule 7(3) of the Judicature (Judicial Review) Rules 2009, a respondent intending to use an affidavit at the hearing must file it as soon as practicable and in any event within 56 days after service of the application, unless the court otherwise directs. Where the affidavit in reply is filed within this period, it is properly before the court and the respondent cannot be faulted for late service.

Legislation cited (12)

Cases cited (4)

  • Proline Soccer Academy v Mulindwa (Misc Application No. 459 of 2009)
  • Uganda Taxi Operators and Drivers Association v Kampala Capital City Authority and Anor (Misc Application No. 137 of 2011)
  • Mwesigwa Phillip v Standard Chartered Bank (Misc Application No. 200 of 2011)
  • Makerere University v St Martin Education Ltd (HCCS No. 378 of 1993)

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Pearline Investment Ltd v Kampala Capital City Authority & Anor (HCT-00-CC-MC 23 of 2011) [2012] UGCommC 82 (11 July 2012)
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.