Wakilii

The AIDS Support Organisation (TASO) (U) Ltd v Wataka John (Miscellaneous Application No. 116 of 2023)

High Court · [2024] UGHC 1345 · 2024 Application Dismissed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Preliminary objection to jurisdiction in a negligence suit arising from alleged erroneous HIV testing and prescription of ARVs
Decision
Both preliminary objections dismissed; main suit to proceed in the High Court

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 High Court has unlimited original jurisdiction to hear a negligence suit arising from alleged erroneous HIV testing and prescription of ARVs. The HIV and AIDS Prevention and Control Act 2015 does not oust the High Court's constitutional jurisdiction over civil claims in tort. A non-commissioned affidavit may be cured by filing a supplementary affidavit under Article 126(2)(e) and section 14A of the Advocates Act, prioritising substantive justice over technicalities. Both preliminary objections dismissed.

Outcome

Both preliminary objections dismissed; main suit to proceed in the High Court

Facts

The Respondent/Plaintiff filed a civil suit against the Applicant/Defendant for negligence, seeking a declaration that the Applicant's staff negligently carried out an HIV test in 2016, issued erroneous HIV positive results, and dispensed antiretroviral drugs (ARVs) for seven years until 2022 when the Respondent discovered he was HIV negative. The Respondent claimed general damages of UGX 150,000,000. The Applicant filed a preliminary objection contending that the High Court lacked jurisdiction because the HIV and AIDS Prevention and Control Act 2015 confers jurisdiction on the Chief Magistrate or Grade 1 Magistrate Court. The Applicant also challenged the Respondent's affidavit in reply as incompetent for not being commissioned. The Respondent filed a supplementary affidavit to cure the defect and argued that the High Court has unlimited original jurisdiction under Article 139(1) of the Constitution and that the claim value exceeded the pecuniary jurisdiction of the lower courts.

Issues

  1. Whether the High Court is the proper forum to entertain a dispute or claim arising from HIV and AIDS testing, counselling and care.
  2. Whether the Respondent's affidavit in reply is competent.

Orders

  • Preliminary objection that the High Court lacks jurisdiction overruled.
  • Preliminary objection that the Respondent's affidavit in reply is incompetent overruled.
  • Supplementary affidavit in reply filed on 15 August 2023 allowed.
  • Costs shall abide the outcome of the main suit.

Rules and key headnotes

Jurisdiction — High Court unlimited original jurisdiction — Constitutional provision cannot be ousted by statute
The High Court's unlimited original jurisdiction under Article 139(1) of the Constitution cannot be ousted by a statute unless expressly provided for in the Constitution itself; the HIV and AIDS Prevention and Control Act 2015 does not expressly bar the High Court from hearing civil claims in negligence arising from HIV testing and care.
HIV and AIDS Prevention and Control Act 2015 — Scope and jurisdiction
The HIV and AIDS Prevention and Control Act 2015 primarily criminalises illegal acts related to HIV and AIDS and does not cover civil claims in tort for negligence; the definition of 'court' in the Act as Chief Magistrate or Grade 1 Magistrate Court relates to the criminal offences created under the Act and does not oust the High Court's jurisdiction over civil matters.
Jurisdiction — Determination based on remedies sought — Pecuniary jurisdiction
Jurisdiction should be determined not only from the cause of action or value of the subject matter but also from the remedies sought; where a plaintiff claims general damages of UGX 150,000,000, the claim exceeds the pecuniary jurisdiction of the Chief Magistrate or Grade 1 Magistrate Court and properly lies before the High Court.
Affidavits — Non-commissioned affidavits — Curing defects
A non-commissioned affidavit is defective but may be cured by filing a supplementary affidavit; section 14A of the Advocates Act protects innocent litigants from errors by advocates and allows a party to rectify defects by filing fresh affidavits; substance should prevail over form to ensure substantive justice.
Affidavits — Timing of application to rectify defects — No time restrictions under section 14A
Section 14A of the Advocates Act creates no time restrictions as to when an application to rectify a defective affidavit may be made; an application made as soon as the party becomes aware of the defect should be allowed and the matter heard on its merits.

Legislation cited (16)

Cases cited (12)

  • Koboko District Local Government v Okujjo Swali (Miscellaneous Application No. 001 of 2016)
  • Gabula Benefansion v Wakidalu Meraso (Civil Appeal No. 29 of 2006)
  • Uganda Revenue Authority v Rabbo Enterprises (U) Ltd & Anor (Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 12 of 2004)
  • Opendi Patrick & 16 Others v Kiconco Medard (Civil Revision No. 33 of 2018)
  • Bankone Limited v Simbamanyo Estates Limited (Miscellaneous Application No. 645 of 2020)
  • Amtorg Trading Corporation v. United States, 71 F. 2d 524
  • Namutebi Matilda v Ssemanda Simon and 2 Others (Miscellaneous Application No. 430 of 2021)
  • Col (Rtd) Dr Kiiza Besigye v Museveni Yoweri Kaguta and Electoral Commission (Election Petition No. 1 of 2001)
  • Italian Ashalthaulage Ltd & 2 Ors v Assit (U) Ltd (Court of Appeal No. 90 of 2000)
  • Sugga v RoadMaster Cycles (U) Ltd [2002] EA 2
  • Male Wilson v Kayondo Fred & Anor (Election Petition Appeal No. 47 of 2021)
  • Ochwa David v Ogwari Polycarp & EC (Election Petition Appeal No. 16 of 2021)

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

The AIDS Support Organisation (TASO) (U) Ltd v Wataka John (Miscellaneous Application No. 116 of 2023) [2024] UGHC 1345 (31 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.