Wakilii

Shireen Nathu v Mansoor Nadir and Another (Miscellaneous Application No. 6126 of 2025)

High Court · [2026] UGHCFD 46 · 2026 Application Dismissed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Application for procedural directions to cross-examine respondent on affidavit in reply in pending interlocutory injunction application
Decision
Application for procedural directions dismissed; interlocutory injunction application to proceed to ruling without cross-examination

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 dismissed an application seeking procedural directions to cross-examine a respondent on his affidavit in reply in a pending interlocutory injunction application. The court held that the applicant's affidavit sworn before a Canadian Commissioner for Oaths was not fatally defective under the Oaths Act. On the substantive issue, the court found that cross-examination at the interlocutory stage would not materially aid determination of whether temporary injunction should issue, as the contested factual matters raised were more appropriately reserved for trial of the main suit. Granting the application would convert interlocutory proceedings into a premature trial and unnecessarily prolong proceedings already substantially advanced.

Outcome

Application for procedural directions dismissed; interlocutory injunction application to proceed to ruling without cross-examination

Facts

The applicant filed Civil Suit No. 504 of 2024 against the respondents (executors of her late husband's estate) seeking declarations that the deceased's will was invalid, orders for full accounting of the estate, and damages. Simultaneously, she filed Miscellaneous Application No. 2701 of 2024 seeking temporary injunctive relief restraining the respondents from further dealings with the estate pending determination of the main suit. The respondents filed an affidavit in reply to the injunction application. The injunction application progressed before the Registrar, who directed written submissions and reserved ruling before referring the matter to the Trial Judge. Subsequently, the applicant filed the present application seeking procedural directions to cross-examine the 1st respondent on his affidavit in reply, citing her medical condition (age 82, undergoing specialized treatment abroad, unable to sit for long periods or endure stress) and alleging serious issues regarding estate mismanagement requiring clarification. The respondents objected, arguing the applicant's affidavit was defective (sworn before a Canadian Commissioner for Oaths rather than notary public) and that cross-examination at the interlocutory stage was procedurally improper and would delay proceedings.

Issues

  1. Whether the affidavit in support of the application deposed by the applicant is fatally defective?
  2. Whether the application demonstrates grounds to warrant the grant of an order to cross-examine the 1st respondent on his affidavit in reply in Miscellaneous Application No. 2701 of 2024?
  3. What remedies are available to the parties?

Orders

  • Application dismissed.
  • Costs of this application shall be in the cause.

Rules and key headnotes

Evidence — Affidavits — Validity of Affidavits Sworn Abroad — Oaths Act Requirements
An affidavit sworn outside Uganda before a person having authority to administer oaths in that jurisdiction is valid under section 12(1) of the Oaths Act, and the party challenging the affidavit bears the burden of proving that the person before whom it was sworn lacked such authority.
Civil Procedure — Affidavits — Technical Objections — Substantive Justice
Where an affidavit is properly sworn on oath before a person prima facie authorized to administer oaths, a mere technical objection regarding the designation of that person will not render the affidavit fatally defective, as courts must administer substantive justice without undue regard to technicalities under Article 126(2)(e) of the Constitution.
Civil Procedure — Cross-Examination — Discretion of Court — Order 19 Rule 2
The power of court under Order 19 Rule 2(1) of the Civil Procedure Rules to order attendance of a deponent for cross-examination is discretionary and must be exercised judiciously depending on the circumstances of each case, considering the importance of the issue, whether cross-examination will unduly delay proceedings, and whether it is likely to elucidate the relevant issues in controversy.
Civil Procedure — Interlocutory Applications — Cross-Examination at Interlocutory Stage — Temporary Injunctions
Cross-examination of a deponent on affidavit evidence will not be ordered at the interlocutory stage of a temporary injunction application where the contested factual matters raised are substantive issues more appropriately reserved for detailed interrogation and comprehensive determination during trial of the main suit, as interlocutory proceedings should not be converted into a premature trial of the substantive dispute.
Civil Procedure — Case Management — Expeditious Disposal — Fragmentation of Proceedings
Courts have a duty to ensure expeditious disposal of cases and to avoid unnecessary fragmentation of proceedings through multiple interlocutory applications which risk delaying the substantive resolution of disputes, particularly where interlocutory proceedings have already substantially progressed and are ready for determination.

Legislation cited (7)

Cases cited (3)

  • Col. (RTD) Besigye Kizza v Museveni Yoweri Kaguta and Another (Presidential Election Petition No. 1 of 2001)
  • Comfoam (U) Ltd v Royikems Industries Ltd (Miscellaneous Application No. 49 of 2021)
  • Lt. Gen. (Rtd) Henry Tumukunde vs. Attorney General & Another

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Shireen Nathu v Mansoor Nadir and Another (Miscellaneous Application No. 6126 of 2025) [2026] UGHCFD 46 (13 May 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.