Wakilii

Sserwadda & 2 Others v China State Construction Engineering Corporation Limited (Miscellaneous Application 2269 of 2023)

High Court · [2024] UGCOMMC 82 · 2024 Application Dismissed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Application for leave to amend plaint by striking off two plaintiffs, arising from Civil Suit No. 0059 of 2023
Decision
Application struck off for lack of competent supporting evidence

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

Application for leave to amend plaint by striking off two plaintiffs dismissed. Court found grave contradictions between the first applicant's affidavit supporting the application (claiming rent arrears were outstanding) and his subsequent supplementary affidavit in a related application (confirming all rent had been paid). The contradictory affidavit evidence was rejected and expunged, leaving the application unsupported.

Outcome

Application struck off for lack of competent supporting evidence

Facts

Applicants filed Civil Suit No. 0059 of 2023 claiming UGX 60,000,000 in rent arrears from respondent tenant. The suit was brought by five plaintiffs including Daniel Kisekka, Peter Katalaga, Kato Laban Sserwadda, Gladys Nakibuule Kisekka and Lillian Sagala Abi, all beneficiaries of various estates. After filing, the 1st and 2nd plaintiffs filed supplementary affidavits supporting the respondent's application for leave to appear and defend. The 3rd, 4th and 5th plaintiffs then applied to strike off the 1st and 2nd plaintiffs from the plaint. The 1st applicant swore an affidavit stating the claim was genuine and rent arrears were outstanding. Two months later, he swore a supplementary affidavit in a related application confirming all rent had been paid and the main suit had no merit.

Issues

  1. Whether the affidavit in support of the application is competent.
  2. Whether the 1st and 2nd plaintiffs should be struck off the plaint.

Orders

  • Application struck off the court record.
  • Costs of this application to abide by the outcome of the main suit.

Rules and key headnotes

Evidence — Affidavit Evidence — Contradictions — Grave Contradictions
Grave contradictions in affidavit evidence will, unless satisfactorily explained, result in that evidence being rejected.
Civil Procedure — Affidavits — Weight and Credibility
A sworn affidavit is not a document to be treated lightly and factual contradictions in affidavits cannot be ignored, however minor.
Civil Procedure — Applications — Affidavit in Support — Effect of Rejection
Where an affidavit in support of an application is rejected and expunged for grave contradictions, the application stands unsupported by affidavit evidence and must fail.

Legislation cited (4)

Cases cited (2)

  • Sirasi Bitaitana & 4 Ors v Emmanuel Kananura [1977] HCB 37
  • Sarapio Tinkamalirwe v Uganda (SC Criminal Appeal No. 27 of 1989)

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Sserwadda & 2 Others v China State Construction Engineering Corporation Limited (Miscellaneous Application 2269 of 2023) [2024] UGCommC 82 (30 January 2024)
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.