Wakilii

Sempijja v Energoprojekt (Civil Suit No. 28 of 2009)

High Court · [2015] UGHCLD 67 · 2015 Evidence Expunged — Witnesses Recalled AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
First instance civil suit for declaration of ownership, removal of materials, permanent injunction, and damages for trespass
Decision
Matter to proceed with witnesses recalled for oral evidence in chief

Observed later treatment

Cited — treatment unverified cited in 1 (treatment unverified) Sequitur — Uganda’s citator · Derived from citing cases in the Wakilii corpus — not an assertion that this case is good law.

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.

No adverse treatment recorded Cited 1 time with no adverse treatment recorded; not yet tested on the merits. Derived from citing cases in the Wakilii corpus — a deterministic signal, not legal advice.

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 three witness statements where witnesses testified in cross-examination that they signed statements in locations different from where the commissioner for oaths certified the oath was taken, no oath was actually administered, and no translation was provided despite witnesses lacking English fluency. The court exercised its powers under the Civil Procedure Act and Evidence Act to recall witnesses to give oral evidence in chief to cure the procedural irregularity and prevent the plaintiff being condemned unheard.

Outcome

Matter to proceed with witnesses recalled for oral evidence in chief

Facts

The plaintiff claimed ownership of land at Busukuma inherited from his grandmother Nabitaka who died in the 1980s leaving a will in his favour. He alleged the defendant trespassed and graded the land in 2008 without permission. The defendant claimed occupation with permission from Busukuma Sub County Local Government and Buganda Government from April 2008 to October 2012, and challenged plaintiff's ownership. Evidence was by witness statements. During submissions, defendant's counsel objected that three witness statements appeared false and improperly commissioned. In cross-examination, two witnesses testified they signed statements in Busukuma, not Kampala as certified by the commissioner for oaths. No witness testified to taking an oath before the commissioner or receiving translation from English to Luganda despite limited English proficiency.

Issues

  1. Whether the witness statements adduced by the plaintiff were properly commissioned and admissible in evidence.
  2. Whether witness statements that were not sworn before the commissioner for oaths and where no proper translation was made can be relied upon as evidence.

Orders

  • Plaintiff's witness statements (Exhibits 1, 2, and 6) expunged from the record.
  • Plaintiff's witnesses recalled to give evidence in chief orally, followed by cross-examination and re-examination.
  • Defendant's counsel given option to recall defendant's witnesses for additional examination in chief if deemed necessary.
  • Plaintiff's counsel and plaintiff to meet in equal shares any costs incurred in recalling plaintiff's witnesses.

Rules and key headnotes

Evidence — Witness Statements — Requirements for Admission — Oath and Commissioning
Witness statements are depositions made on oath and can only be admitted in evidence after the witness presenting the statement has taken oath to confirm its truth.
Evidence — Witness Statements — Irregularity in Commissioning — Effect on Admissibility
Where witnesses testify in cross-examination that they signed statements at locations different from where the commissioner for oaths certified the oath was taken, and that no oath was actually administered before the commissioner, such statements are unreliable and must be expunged from the record.
Civil Procedure — Powers of Court — Cure of Procedural Irregularities — Recall of Witnesses
Where witness statements are struck out due to improper commissioning through no fault of the party but rather their counsel, the court may exercise powers under Section 98 of the Civil Procedure Act and Section 146(4) of the Evidence Act to recall witnesses to give oral evidence in chief to serve the interests of justice and prevent a party being condemned unheard.
Evidence — Translation — Duty of Counsel — Consequences of Failure
It is the duty of counsel to present witnesses before the commissioner for oaths to take the oath and for proper translation to be made where witnesses lack fluency in the language of the statement, and failure to do so renders the evidence unreliable.

Legislation cited (3)

Cases cited (1)

  • Kiridde Mathew v Busulwa Vincent and Others (HCCS No. 449 of 2013)

Cases citing this judgment (1)

How later Ugandan judgments in the Wakilii corpus have cited this case. Treatment labels come from Sequitur — Uganda’s citator — each backed by a verbatim span from the citing judgment, and are not an assertion that this case is, or is not, good law.

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Sempijja v Energoprojekt (Civil Suit No. 28 of 2009) [2015] UGHCLD 67 (17 March 2015)
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.