High Court Warns Lawyers to Avoid Citing Repealed Laws Following the 7th Revised Edition of Uganda’s Principal Legislation-Timely Filing of Affidavits in Reply.

So, in this case, the court did not mince words. It expressed its disappointment with counsel for consistently bringing applications under repealed provisions of the law. The judge noted that, effective 1st July 2024, Uganda's principal laws were revised under the 7th Revised Edition, introducing several changes to legal provisions. Despite this, counsel failed to reflect the updates, citing outdated sections such as Section 33 of the Judicature Act (now Section 37) and referencing incorrect chapter numbers for the Civil Procedure Act 282 and the Judicature Act Cap 16. The Facts

The Applicants sought to set aside the dismissal of their appeal, which had been struck off for non-appearance. Their argument was grounded on illness and alleged lapses by their lawyer. However, their pleadings cited outdated legal provisions, a glaring oversight in the wake of Uganda’s 7th Revised Edition of Principal Laws, effective 1 July 2024.

You can find these updated laws on our telegram

https://t.me/+jZ2V-hYEgcEwN2U1

Ruling on the Preliminary Objection

Counsel for the Applicants raised a preliminary objection regarding the late filing of an affidavit in reply. The objection was based on the premise that the affidavit was filed beyond the prescribed 15-day period, as per the decision in Stop and See (U) Ltd v. Tropical Africa Bank Misc. Application No. 333 of 2010, which mandates that a defence or reply be filed within 15 days. The Applicants contended that failure to comply with this timeline required the affidavit to be struck out. However, the Respondents argued that the 15-day timeline does not apply to an affidavit in reply.

Court's Determination

Affidavits in Reply Are Evidence, Not Pleadings

The court emphasized that affidavits serve as evidence rather than pleadings. As noted in Dr. Lam Lagoro James v Muni University (Miscellaneous Civil Cause No. 0007 of 2016), affidavits aim to provide evidence to expedite proceedings and avoid unnecessary delays. Therefore, timelines for written statements of defense do not directly apply to affidavits.

Reasonable Time

In determining whether the affidavit was filed on time, the court relied on the principle of reasonable time before the hearing. This ensures fairness and provides the opposing party adequate time to respond.

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 case, the affidavit was filed more than a month before the hearing, which the court deemed reasonable.

No Explicit Timeline Under the Civil Procedure Rules

The court observed that while Order 19 of the Civil Procedure Rules governs affidavits, it does not prescribe a specific timeline for filing affidavits in reply. The court held that had the drafters intended to impose strict timelines, they would have explicitly provided for them.

Practical Implications for Practitioners

Cite Recent Case Law
Counsel must stay updated on recent legal developments, as reliance on outdated authorities may weaken their case. The court referenced Stop and See (U) Ltd v Tropical Africa Bank (Misc. Application No. 333 of 2010) but clarified its limited applicability to affidavits.
Prepare Evidence Carefully
As the court highlighted in James Bwogi & Sons Enterprises Ltd v Kampala City Council and Kampala District Land Board (Civil Application No. 09 of 2017), sufficient cause must be substantiated with clear evidence, including proof of diligence or unavoidable circumstances.