The High Court has clarified that there is no specific statutory timeframe within which a respondent in a judicial review application must file an affidavit in reply

Brief for the case of Turyamureeba Julius and Others v Nakaseke District Local Government (Miscellaneous Cause 10 of 2024) [2025] UGHC 368 (2 June 2025)

Legal Representation

The Applicants were represented by Mr. Tumwebaze Ivan and Mr. Okello Henry, while Mr. Allan Mukama represented the Respondent.

Before Hon. Lady Justice Faridah Shamilah Bukirwah Ntambi

Introduction

The High Court has clarified that there is no specific statutory timeframe within which a respondent in a judicial review application must file an affidavit in reply, unless the applicant amends the motion or files further affidavits.

The Court emphasized that in such cases, affidavits must instead be filed within a "reasonable time" before the hearing to ensure fairness to the applicant.

Background

The Applicants raised a preliminary objection seeking to strike out the Respondent’s affidavits in reply on the grounds that they were filed outside the 56-day period allegedly prescribed by Rule 7(3) of the Judicature (Judicial Review) Rules, 2009.

The Applicants had served the application on 11 November 2024, but the Respondents filed their affidavits on 20 March 2025, purportedly beyond the allowable timeframe.

In rebuttal, the Respondent contended that the 56-day limit only applies where an applicant seeks to amend the motion or file further affidavits. They further submitted that no prejudice was occasioned to the Applicants, who filed affidavits in rejoinder.

Issue

Whether the Respondent’s affidavits in reply were filed out of time in contravention of Rule 7(3) of the Judicial Review Rules, and if so, whether they should be struck out.

Court's Analysis

The Court undertook a close textual reading of Rule 7 of the Judicature (Judicial Review) Rules, 2009, emphasising that Rule 7(1) gives the Court discretion to allow the applicant to amend a motion or file further affidavits in reply to new matters.

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.

The Court criticised the Applicants for relying on Rule 7(3) in isolation and without regard to its structural linkage to Rule 7(1).

In doing so, the Court reaffirmed the position adopted in Dr. Lam Lagoro James v Muni University HCMC No. 07 of 2016, where Justice Stephen Mubiru held that affidavits in reply should be filed within a reasonable time before the hearing, not necessarily within a fixed statutory period, unless otherwise specified.

The Court found that the Respondent filed the affidavits about one month prior to the hearing. The Applicants were able to respond through affidavits in rejoinder filed on 14 April 2025. Therefore, no prejudice was occasioned.

Accordingly, the preliminary objection was overruled, and the matter was directed to proceed on its merits.

Implications

1. In the absence of an amended motion or supplementary affidavits by the applicant, there is no fixed statutory deadline for a respondent to file an affidavit in reply. The requirement is to file “as soon as practicable.”