Wakilii

Uganda Taxi Operators & Driver's Association v Kampala Capital City Authority (Misc. Application 137 of 2011)

High Court · [2011] UGHC 183 · 2011 Preliminary Objection Partly Allowed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Ruling on preliminary objections raised at scheduling conference in judicial review application
Decision
First respondent may participate on points of law only; second respondent's affidavit remains on record subject to evaluation at trial

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

Court held that the first respondent's failure to file an affidavit in reply means no evidence has been adduced to support its case, though it is not shut out from raising points of law. The second respondent's affidavit, though containing portions offensive to Order 19 Rule 3, remains on record with the court to determine at trial which parts are admissible. Court fees were properly paid.

Outcome

First respondent may participate on points of law only; second respondent's affidavit remains on record subject to evaluation at trial

Facts

At a scheduling conference on 12 December 2011, counsel for the applicant raised three preliminary points of law concerning admissibility of evidence. The first point concerned the first respondent's failure to file an affidavit in reply. The second related to alleged non-payment of court fees for the second respondent's affidavit. The third concerned whether the second respondent's affidavit offended Order 19 Rule 3 by containing matters beyond the deponent's own knowledge. The respondents were sued in their separate capacities regarding a decision complained of in what appears to be a judicial review application.

Issues

  1. Whether the first respondent's failure to file an affidavit in reply bars it from participating in the proceedings.
  2. Whether the affidavit filed by the second respondent offends Order 19 Rule 3 of the Civil Procedure Rules and should be expunged from the record.
  3. Whether court fees were paid in respect of the second respondent's affidavit.

Orders

  • The preliminary points of law succeed to the extent that the first respondent did not file an affidavit in reply.
  • The prayer to expunge the affidavit of the second respondent from the record is dismissed.
  • No order as to costs.

Rules and key headnotes

Civil Procedure — Affidavits in Reply — Effect of Failure to File
Where a respondent fails to file an affidavit in reply in civil proceedings, no evidence is deemed adduced to support that party's case, but the party is not shut out from participating in the trial as far as points of law arise from the application.
Civil Procedure — Multiple Respondents — Separate Representation
Where respondents are sued in their separate capacities and may have played different roles in the matter complained of, an affidavit filed by one respondent does not automatically cover another respondent unless it expressly states so, even if one respondent is an official of the other.
Evidence — Affidavits — Order 19 Rule 3 — Treatment of Defective Affidavits
Where an affidavit contains some paragraphs that offend Order 19 Rule 3 by not being confined to facts within the deponent's own knowledge, the court may retain the affidavit on record and determine at trial which parts are admissible and which parts are not, rather than expunging the entire affidavit.

Legislation cited (2)

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Uganda Taxi Operators & Driver's Association v Kampala Capital City Authority (Misc. Application 137 of 2011) [2011] UGHC 183 (22 December 2011)
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.