Wakilii

Rafii Afric Ministries International Limited v Kiwanuka Joseph and Another (Miscellaneous Application No 237 of 2025)

High Court · [2025] UGHC 1089 Application Granted AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Interlocutory application for witness summons arising from civil suit concerning disputed trust deed
Decision
Application granted; witness summoned to appear at main 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

Held that a court retains wide discretion under section 22 of the Civil Procedure Act and Order 16 Rule 1 of the Civil Procedure Rules to summon any witness whose testimony is material to fair adjudication. The applicant provided sufficient justification for summoning Mr. Jude Byamukama, as the draftsman and attesting witness to the disputed trust deed already admitted in evidence. His testimony is essential to clarify the document's validity and execution. Courts should not elevate procedural form over substantive justice by requiring proof of prior refusal before issuing a witness summons.

Outcome

Application granted; witness summoned to appear at main hearing

Facts

The applicant filed a miscellaneous application seeking to summon Mr. Jude Byamukama to testify as a witness in the main suit (HCT-26-LD-CS-0013 of 2025). The main suit concerns a trust deed dated 26th May 2015, which the 1st respondent disputes. The applicant claims that Mr. Byamukama drafted the trust deed and witnessed its signing by the 1st respondent. The applicant argues his testimony is material and necessary for determining the authenticity and validity of the trust deed, which has been admitted as exhibit PEX5. The 1st respondent opposed, arguing the application is frivolous and that a witness can only be compelled after refusing to appear voluntarily. The 2nd respondent opposed on grounds that the trust deed was never registered and the application lacks merit.

Issues

  1. Whether Mr. Jude Byamukama should be summoned and compelled to appear before the court to testify as a witness in HCT-26-LD-CS-0013 of 2025 at the request of the applicant.

Orders

  • Mr. Jude Byamukama is summoned to appear before the court as a witness in HCT-26-LD-CS-0013 of 2025 to give evidence on matters relating to the Trust Deed dated 26th May 2015.
  • The Deputy Registrar is directed to issue the summons for Mr. Jude Byamukama to attend court on 5th March 2026 at 10:00 a.m. for hearing.
  • The applicant shall meet all travel and related expenses of Mr. Jude Byamukama for attending court, including one day's attendance, which shall be paid upon his attendance.
  • The costs of the application shall abide the outcome of the main suit.

Rules and key headnotes

Civil Procedure — Witness Summons — Court's Discretion Under Section 22 of the Civil Procedure Act
Under section 22 of the Civil Procedure Act Cap 282 and Order 16 Rule 1 of the Civil Procedure Rules, the court retains wide discretion to summon any witness whose testimony is material to the fair and complete adjudication of the issues before it, the primary consideration being whether the attendance of such witness is necessary in the interest of justice.
Civil Procedure — Witness Summons — Conditions for Exercise of Discretion
For a court to exercise its discretion to summon a witness, there must be some explanation or reason put forward upon which the discretion may be exercised, and the court should be guided on the relevance of the testimony of the intended witness to the specific issues to be decided.
Civil Procedure — Witness Summons — No Requirement of Prior Refusal
The law does not preclude a court from issuing a witness summons where the attendance of a witness is essential to the just determination of a matter, and there is no requirement that the applicant must first demonstrate the witness's refusal to attend before the court can exercise its discretion to issue summons.
Civil Procedure — Constitutional Mandate — Substance Over Form
Article 126(2)(e) of the Constitution enjoins courts to administer justice without undue regard to technicalities. To insist that an applicant must first demonstrate a witness's refusal to attend before the court can issue summons would elevate procedural form over substantive justice and undermine the court's truth-seeking function.

Legislation cited (9)

Cases cited (4)

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Rafii Afric Ministries International Limited v Kiwanuka Joseph and Another (Miscellaneous Application No_ 237 of 2025) [2025] UGHC 1089 (3 October 202
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.