[2007] UGSC 5

[2007] UGSC 5

The Supreme Court held that the procedure for reference under Rule 52 is specific and does not require a notice of motion or additional evidence unless leave is granted. The applicant's oral application for reference was proper, but the subsequent notice of motion and affidavits were unnecessary and contrary to the...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2007] UGSC 5
Parties
Applicant: A. K. P. M. Lutaaya; Respondent: Attorney General
Court
Supreme Court of Uganda
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Number
Civil Reference 1 of 2007
Procedural Posture
Civil Reference / Reference From Single Judge to Full Bench
Outcome
reference dismissed; single Judge's order confirmed
Legal Topics
Reference Procedure, Extension of Time, Functus Officio, Affidavit Evidence
Source Language
en
Civil Procedure Reference Procedure Extension of Time Functus Officio Affidavit Evidence

Source-derived case record

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Downloadable case file Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 7 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

A. K. P. M. Lutaaya

Applicant

Attorney General

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Reference / Reference From Single Judge to Full Bench

  1. 1 Whether the single Judge was functus officio after striking out Civil Application No. 1 of 2007 and thus barred from entertaining Civil Application No. 12 of 2007.
  2. 2 Whether the procedure adopted for the reference, including filing a notice of motion and affidavits, was proper under Rule 52 of the Supreme Court Rules.
  3. 3 Whether the respondent adduced sufficient grounds for extension of time to file a memorandum of appeal.

Ratio Decidendi

The Supreme Court held that the procedure for reference under Rule 52 is specific and does not require a notice of motion or additional evidence unless leave is granted. The applicant's oral application for reference was proper, but the subsequent notice of motion and affidavits were unnecessary and contrary to the rule. On the merits, the Court found that the single Judge was not functus officio after striking out the first application, as it was dismissed for lack of a sworn affidavit and not on substantive grounds. The subsequent application was a new matter properly supported by affidavit, and the Judge had jurisdiction to hear it. The Court further found that the respondent had...

Court Disposition

reference dismissed; single Judge's order confirmed

Orders

  • Respondent granted thirty (30) days within which to institute the appeal.
  • Costs of the reference to abide the decision in the intended appeal.