Ssebunya v Kenfrieght Uganda Limited and Another (Civil Suit No. 988 of 1998)

Observed later treatment

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.

Holding

The court dismissed the defendant's application to set aside an interlocutory judgment and for leave to defend out of time on three independent procedural grounds: (1) the supporting affidavit failed to state the place where it was deposed contrary to section 8 of the Oaths Act, rendering it defective; (2) the advocate improperly acted as both counsel and witness in a contentious matter; and (3) the chamber summons was invalid as it was not signed by the Registrar as required by Order 5 rule 1(1) of the Civil Procedure Rules.

Outcome

Application dismissed on three preliminary objections relating to procedural defects

Facts

The defendants/applicants brought an application to set aside an interlocutory judgment entered in Civil Suit No. 988 of 1998 and for leave to defend out of time. The application was grounded on the claim that summons were forwarded to their lawyers in time but a clerk inadvertently failed to file a defence, and that the applicants had a good defence and counterclaim. The application was supported by an affidavit deposed by Lillian Khalayi, the advocate conducting the application. The plaintiff/respondent raised three preliminary objections: first, that the affidavit did not state in the jurat the place where it was deposed, contrary to section 8 of the Oaths Act; second, that the advocate improperly acted as both counsel and witness in a contentious matter where her affidavit contradicted the respondent's evidence on the date of service; and third, that the chamber summons was not signed by the Registrar as required by Order 5 rule 1(1) of the Civil Procedure Rules.

Issues

1. Whether the affidavit supporting the application was defective for non-compliance with section 8 of the Oaths Act.
2. Whether an advocate can properly act as both counsel and witness in contentious matters.
3. Whether the chamber summons was valid where it was not signed by the Registrar as required by Order 5 rule 1(1) of the Civil Procedure Rules.

Orders

• Application dismissed.
• Affidavit struck out for non-compliance with section 8 of the Oaths Act.
• Chamber summons declared improperly brought before the court.

Rules and key headnotes

Legislation cited (5)

• Civil Procedure Rules Order 9 rules 9 and 24
• Civil Procedure Rules Order 48 rules 1 and 7
• Civil Procedure Act s.101
• Oaths Act Cap.52 s.8
• Civil Procedure Rules Order 5 rule 1(1)

Cases cited (4)

• Teddy Nanazzi v Anne Sibo (High Court Civil Appeal No. 39 of 1986)
• Haji Yusufu Luyombo v Masaba Co-operative Union (High Court Civil Suit No. 481 of 1994)
• Babumba and 2 Others v Bunju (High Court Civil Appeal No. 119 of 1988-1990)
• East Africa Plans Ltd v Roger Arran Bickford Smith (High Court Civil Suit No. 426 of 1969)

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.

• Nathan Katamba v Stephen Kabigyema (High Court Rev. No.42 Of 1998) (High Court Rev. No.42 of 1998)

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