Wakilii

Ruby Wallia v Tech First Group Uganda Limited (Miscellaneous Application 355 of 2023)

Industrial Court · [2026] UGIC 44 · 2026 Application Dismissed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Ex parte interlocutory application for leave to serve notice of claim outside jurisdiction arising from Labour Dispute Reference No. 355 of 2024
Decision
Application dismissed for incompetent 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

An application for service out of jurisdiction supported by an affidavit sworn by a court process server who was not shown to be authorised to depone to substantive facts beyond service of process is incompetent and fatally defective. Where the deponent does not disclose how substantive facts came to his knowledge and is not shown to be an authorised agent, the affidavit cannot support the application. The application must be dismissed.

Outcome

Application dismissed for incompetent supporting affidavit

Facts

The Applicant, a former agent of the Respondent company in Uganda, sought leave to serve notice of claim outside the jurisdiction and extension of time for service. The Applicant's case was that the Respondent had ceased operations in Uganda and was now headquartered in Dubai, United Arab Emirates. All attempts to effect service within Uganda proved futile. The application was supported by an affidavit from Sankara Richard, an authorised court process server, who deposed that he could not locate the Respondent within Uganda and that the Respondent's headquarters were in Dubai. The application sought service by publication in a newspaper of wide circulation in the United Arab Emirates.

Issues

  1. Whether the affidavit in support of the application for service out of jurisdiction was competent.
  2. Whether the Court should grant leave to effect service of notice of claim upon the Respondent outside the jurisdiction.
  3. Whether the time for service should be extended.

Orders

  • The application is dismissed.
  • No order as to costs is made.

Rules and key headnotes

Civil Procedure — Affidavits — Competence of Deponent — Court Process Server
A court process server is competent to depone only to matters relating to service of process and facts encountered in the course of such service. Where a process server depones to substantive facts forming the basis of an application without disclosing how such facts came to his knowledge or showing authorisation to act as an agent, the affidavit is incompetent and incurably defective.
Civil Procedure — Service Out of Jurisdiction — Requirements for Leave
An application for service out of jurisdiction under Order 5 rules 22 and 24 of the Civil Procedure Rules must be supported by an affidavit stating the facts on which the court is asked to assume jurisdiction, that the applicant has a good cause of action, the country and place where the defendant may probably be found, and whether the defendant is a Commonwealth citizen or British protected person.
Civil Procedure — Affidavits — Fatal Defects
An application not supported by a competent affidavit is fatally defective and must fail. The court cannot exercise its discretion to grant relief where the supporting affidavit is incompetent.

Legislation cited (11)

Cases cited (1)

  • Al Hajji Abidi & 3 Others v Tropical Africa Bank (Miscellaneous Application No. 360 of 2006)

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Ruby Wallia v Tech First Group Uganda Limited (Miscellaneous Application 355 of 2023) [2026] UGIC 44 (9 January 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.