Wakilii

The Registered Trustees of Arya Pratinidhi Sabha East Africa v Mukesh (Miscellaneous Application 103 of 2023)

High Court · [2024] UGHC 650 · 2024 Application Granted AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Application for leave to file a supplementary affidavit in reply arising from Miscellaneous Application No. 55 of 2023
Decision
Application granted; Applicant permitted to file supplementary affidavit; Respondent permitted to amend affidavit in rejoinder if desired

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

Held that the High Court has discretionary power under Section 33 of the Judicature Act and Section 98 of the Civil Procedure Act to grant leave to file a supplementary affidavit even after pleadings are closed where such evidence enables the court to determine the matter conclusively and the application is brought in good faith. The court granted leave, finding that the supplementary affidavit would enable determination of the question of locus standi and that the application was brought in good faith to respond to the respondent's challenge to the applicant's legal standing, with costs awarded to the respondent.

Outcome

Application granted; Applicant permitted to file supplementary affidavit; Respondent permitted to amend affidavit in rejoinder if desired

Facts

The Applicant instituted Civil Suit No. 60 of 2022 against the Departed Asians Property Custodian Board and the Respondent. In 2023, the Respondent filed Miscellaneous Application No. 55 of 2023 challenging the Applicant's locus standi to bring the suit based on a discrepancy in the Certificate of Incorporation. The Applicant swore an affidavit in reply on 6 April 2023. Prior to filing, on 4 April 2023, the Applicant's lawyers had requested a search report on the Applicant from the Ministry of Lands and Urban Development. The search report was released on 9 May 2023, and on 11 April 2023 the Applicant received a return of new trustees from the Ministry of Lands. These documents were not available when the Applicant filed the initial affidavit in reply. The Applicant made an oral application for leave to file a supplementary affidavit on 2 May 2023, which was not ruled upon. The present application for leave was then filed on 12 May 2023.

Issues

  1. Whether the Applicant should be granted leave to file a supplementary affidavit in reply after the pleadings had been closed.

Orders

  • The Applicant is granted leave to file a Supplementary Affidavit in Miscellaneous Application No. 55 of 2023.
  • Costs for this Application shall be awarded to the Respondent.

Rules and key headnotes

Civil Procedure — Affidavit Evidence — Supplementary Affidavits — Discretion of Court to Grant Leave After Pleadings Closed
The High Court has discretionary power under Section 33 of the Judicature Act and Section 98 of the Civil Procedure Act to grant leave to a party to file a supplementary affidavit even after pleadings have been closed. This discretionary power is not a right but is exercised to enable the court to determine the substantive issues conclusively and in the interests of justice.
Civil Procedure — Affidavits — Supplementary Affidavits — Test for Granting Leave
In determining whether to grant leave to file a supplementary affidavit after pleadings are closed, the court considers two aspects: first, whether the supplementary affidavit will enable the court to determine the issue at hand conclusively; and second, whether the application was brought in good faith.
Civil Procedure — Functus Officio — Court Not Functus Where No Prior Ruling on Same Application
A court becomes functus officio once it has made a substantive order on a matter and cannot thereafter review, alter, or interfere with that order. However, where a court has made no prior ruling on an application for leave to file a supplementary affidavit, notwithstanding that an oral application was made, the court is not functus officio and retains jurisdiction to entertain a formal application on the same issue.
Evidence — Affidavit Evidence — Nature of Affidavit — Affidavit as Evidence Rather Than Pleading
An affidavit is not only a pleading but is primarily evidence provided to the court to enable the determination of a suit. An affidavit in reply is evidence rather than a pleading in stricto sensu and should be filed and served on the adverse party within a reasonable time before the date fixed for hearing.

Legislation cited (10)

Cases cited (9)

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

The Registered Trustees of Arya Pratinidhi Sabha East Africa v Mukesh (Miscellaneous Application 103 of 2023) [2024] UGHC 650 (8 July 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.