Wakilii

Petlas Lastik San.Ve Tic.AS v Kabuuza Murshid Obanda (Miscellaneous Application No. 1896 of 2025)

High Court · [2025] UGCOMMC 476 · 2025 Application Dismissed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Application for attachment before judgment arising from civil suit for recovery of money allegedly obtained through fraudulent misrepresentation
Decision
Application dismissed on preliminary objection; affidavits struck out for contravening professional conduct regulations

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 struck out the affidavit in support and supplementary affidavit sworn by the applicant's counsel on the ground that they contravened Regulation 9 of the Advocates (Professional Conduct) Regulations, which prohibits an advocate retained in a matter from giving evidence on contentious matters in that same case. The affidavits contained contentious allegations of fraud and asset dissipation. The application for attachment before judgment was dismissed.

Outcome

Application dismissed on preliminary objection; affidavits struck out for contravening professional conduct regulations

Facts

The applicant filed a civil suit seeking recovery of USD 159,667 for tyres allegedly obtained by the respondent through fraudulent misrepresentation. The applicant alleged the respondent impersonated a director of a UK company, placed an order for tyres, received the goods in Uganda, and failed to pay. The applicant then filed an application for attachment before judgment, seeking to attach the respondent's property or alternatively for the respondent to furnish security. The affidavit in support and supplementary affidavit were sworn by advocates from the firm representing the applicant. The respondent raised a preliminary objection that the affidavits contravened Regulation 9 of the Advocates (Professional Conduct) Regulations because they contained contentious matters and were sworn by counsel retained in the case.

Issues

  1. Whether the Affidavit in support and Supplementary Affidavit sworn by counsel are properly before court
  2. Whether the respondent's property comprised in Bunamwaya, Kyadondo Block 265 Plot 6618, should be attached pending the determination of Civil Suit No. 1028 of 2025
  3. Whether the respondent should be ordered to furnish security for USD 159,667 pending the determination of HCCS No. 1028 of 2025

Orders

  • The Affidavit in Support and Supplementary Affidavit are struck off the court record.
  • The application is dismissed.
  • Costs of this application are to abide the result of the main suit.

Rules and key headnotes

Civil Procedure — Affidavits — Advocates as Deponents — Contentious Matters
An advocate retained in a matter may not give evidence by affidavit on contentious matters in that same case. Regulation 9 of the Advocates (Professional Conduct) Regulations prohibits an advocate from appearing before a court in any matter in which they will be required to give evidence, whether verbally or by affidavit, except on formal or non-contentious matters.
Evidence — Affidavits — Striking Out — Professional Conduct Violations
Where affidavits in support of an application are sworn by counsel retained in the matter and contain contentious allegations such as fraud and asset dissipation, they offend Regulation 9 of the Advocates (Professional Conduct) Regulations and must be struck off the court record.
Civil Procedure — Preliminary Objections — Effect of Upholding
Preliminary objections, if upheld, have the effect of disposing of the matter at an early stage without the need to delve into the substantive merits of the case. They are raised on purely points of law such as jurisdiction, limitation, procedural irregularities, and if successful, can result in the suit being struck out in limine.

Legislation cited (4)

Cases cited (7)

  • Chen Jian Wen & 2 Others v Bang Chen Investments Co. Ltd (Miscellaneous Application No. 531 of 2023)
  • Ontario Professional Fire Fighters Assn. v Atkinson, (2019) O.J. No. 3410
  • Raman Tec and Process Engineering Co. And Anor v Solanki Traders SCCA No. 6171 of 2001 (Indian Supreme Court)
  • Uganda Electricity Board (In Liquidation) v Royal Van Zanten (U) Ltd (Miscellaneous Application No. 251 of 2006)
  • Mukisa Biscuit Manufacturing Co. Ltd v West End Distributors Ltd [1969] EA 696
  • Uganda Development Bank v Kasirye, Byaruhanga and Company Advocates (Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 35 of 1994)
  • Henry Kaziro Lwandasa v Kyas Global Trading Co. Ltd (Miscellaneous Application No. 865 of 2014)

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Petlas Lastik San.Ve Tic.AS v Kabuuza Murshid Obanda (Miscellaneous Application No. 1896 of 2025) [2025] UGCommC 476 (29 November 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.