Lawpoint Uganda

The Court emphasized that affidavits are evidence and do not necessarily require authorization from co-parties. Modern precedent dispels the notion that lack of authorization renders affidavits incurably defective.

As a rule, if the Plaintiff does not take out Summons for Directions, the suit shall abate and can be dismissed. In the present case, the Respondent failed to take out Summons for Directions within the prescribed 28 days from the date of the last reply, contrary to Order 11A Rule 1(2) and (6) of the Civil Procedure Rules

Relying on the Supreme Court decision in Silver Byaruhanga v. Fr. Emmanuel Ruvugwaho & Anor, SCCA No. 09 of 2014, the Court reaffirmed that joint administration requires joint action unless the administrators were appointed at different times.

High court dismisses application for leave to appear and defend a summary suit over UGX 82M Debt . Subject Matter Summary procedure –...

The appellate court emphasized that the validity of the mortgage was a mixed issue of law and fact, requiring evidence which had not been adduced.

A consent judgment becomes binding once signed by the parties and endorsed by the court. It may only be set aside on limited grounds such as fraud, collusion, or ignorance of material facts

The court further clarified that Rule 7(3) is two-pronged; the first limb directs a respondent to file any intended affidavit “as soon as practicable.” The second limb, which includes the 56-day timeframe, only applies when the applicant has amended their motion or filed additional affidavits, thereby triggering a reciprocal right for the respondent to reply within that set period.

Citing Order 17 Rule 4 of the Civil Procedure Rules (CPR), the Court emphasized that failure to perform “any other act necessary to the further progress of the suit, for which time has been allowed”, including filing submissions, can result in the Court proceeding without considering the defaulting party’s input.

In the present case, the Court held that a competent notice of appeal is one that bears the endorsement of the Registrar, in accordance with Rule 76(1) of the Judicature (Court of Appeal Rules) Directions (SI 13-10), which mandates that a notice of appeal be lodged in duplicate with the Registrar of the High Court. Non-compliance with this procedural requirement renders the application incurably defective and liable to be struck out.

A reinstatement of the suit will not occasion any prejudice to the Respondent… On the other hand, the Applicant has the right to be heard in the main suit, which is protected by Article 28 of the Constitution

While the Court acknowledged Article 41 of the Constitution and section 4 of the Access to Information Act, it emphasized that access to such information is governed by clear procedures set out in the Act. These include submitting a formal written request to the relevant information officer and, where access is denied, appealing first to the Chief Magistrate's Court under section 36 of the Access to Information Act.

The law says that if this 28-day step is not taken, the case “abates.” In simple terms, this means the case is automatically brought to an end, not because the claim is weak, but because the person bringing the case failed to follow the procedure on time. This rule is found in Order 11A of the Civil Procedure Rules, which was updated in 2019 to help courts handle cases faster and avoid unnecessary delays.

A pending bankruptcy petition does not automatically justify a stay of execution. Proper procedure and clear evidence of inability to pay are essential. Inherent powers of court cannot be invoked prematurely or to circumvent due process.

Even after an interlocutory judgment is entered, the Plaintiff must still prove their claim for damages on the balance of probabilities.This remains true whether the suit proceeds ex parte or inter partes

Pleadings are, unlike affidavits, not evidence... With respect, learned counsel is basing on the words 'who is able to depose to the facts of the case' appearing in O.29 r.1 to surmise that only principal officers of a corporation are competent to swear affidavits. That is an incorrect construction. What is required in affidavits is the knowledge or belief of the deponent… not authorisation by a party to the litigation. Competency is pegged to the ability to depose to the fac

A written retainer is not the only way to prove an advocate-client relationship. Courts may infer such a relationship from the conduct, communications, and interactions between the parties. However, absent a clear retainer or conduct signifying mutual agreement, no such relationship can be presumed. Where no advocate-client relationship exists, a law firm is not barred from representing a party, even if it previously interacted with the opposing party in a general advisor

The High Court held that the Applicants had no legal capacity to sue over the suit land because they had not obtained letters of administration for the estate of the late Musa Musoke Kiwumumpu, whose interests they purported to represent. Citing section 187 of the Succession Act, the Court emphasized that no right to a deceased’s property can be established in court without first obtaining letters of administration.

A consent order is binding unless obtained by fraud, collusion, mistake, or misapprehension, or if it violates court policy or lacks materia

Courts are inclined to maintain the balance between preserving the appellant’s right of appeal and protecting the respondent’s entitlement t

The Supreme Court referenced its previous decisions which affirm that courts must allow a full hearing where preliminary objections have be

The court emphasized that it cannot grant an injunction or stay an interest in land that it has previously determined to be nonexistent.

It was held that Originating Summons is not a procedure suitable for resolving disputed questions of fact or cases requiring considerable am

The court emphasized that affidavits should be filed before the hearing of the motion, but the law is silent on the exact timing. In this ca

Civilians can be subject to military law where they are charged with aiding and abetting serving UPDF Officers to commit service offences.