[2013] UGHCLD 53

[2013] UGHCLD 53

The court dismissed the application to review and set aside the judgment and decree in civil suit no. 311 of 2011 because the applicants failed to discharge the burden of proof required by law. The evidence presented, in the form of unsworn witness statements, was inadmissible and not credible, as required by the Evidence Act and the Oaths Act. The dismissal was not based on the inadvertence or mistake of counsel, but on the substantive failure to provide admissible evidence. The court found no sufficient reason to exercise its discretion under section 33 of the Judicature Act or section 98 of the Civil Procedure Act to review its decision, as the applicants did not meet the settled legal...

Citation
[2013] UGHCLD 53
Parties
Applicant: Administrator General of Uganda (suing through Kaloli Mwebe and Wannyana Norah Harriet); Respondent: Kitatta Abudalla; Respondent: Jjuko Bamweyana; Respondent: Mukasa Ronald; Respondent: Moses Mutaave; Respondent: Godfrey Nkobeku; Respondent: Ronnie Mutyaba; Respondent: Siraje Butchman; Respondent: Kiwanuka Kiwanda; Respondent: Lukwago Kassajja; Respondent: Diana Namukasa; Respondent: Namuyiga Agnes; Respondent: Kobusingye Rose
Court
HC: Land Division (Uganda)
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Judgment Date
6 June 2013
Case Number
Ma No. 1066 of 2012
Procedural Posture
Miscellaneous Application / Ruling
Outcome
application dismissed
Judges
Tuhaise, J
Legal Topics
Review of Judgment, Burden of Proof, Admissibility of Evidence, Unsworn Statements, Inherent Powers of Court
Source Language
English
Civil Procedure Land and Property Review of Judgment Burden of Proof Admissibility of Evidence Unsworn Statements Inherent Powers of Court

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 6 Authorities cited 7 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Administrator General of Uganda (suing through Kaloli Mwebe and Wannyana Norah Harriet)

Applicant

Kitatta Abudalla

Respondent

Jjuko Bamweyana

Respondent

Mukasa Ronald

Respondent

Moses Mutaave

Respondent

Godfrey Nkobeku

Respondent

Ronnie Mutyaba

Respondent

Siraje Butchman

Respondent

Kiwanuka Kiwanda

Respondent

Lukwago Kassajja

Respondent

Diana Namukasa

Respondent

Namuyiga Agnes

Respondent

Kobusingye Rose

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Miscellaneous Application / Ruling

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the court should set aside the decree/order dismissing civil suit no. 311 of 2011.
  2. 2 Whether the inadvertence or mistake of counsel in filing unsworn witness statements justifies review of the dismissal order.
  3. 3 Whether the applicants discharged the burden of proof required for judgment in their favour.

Ratio Decidendi

The court dismissed the application to review and set aside the judgment and decree in civil suit no. 311 of 2011 because the applicants failed to discharge the burden of proof required by law. The evidence presented, in the form of unsworn witness statements, was inadmissible and not credible, as required by the Evidence Act and the Oaths Act. The dismissal was not based on the inadvertence or mistake of counsel, but on the substantive failure to provide admissible evidence. The court found no sufficient reason to exercise its discretion under section 33 of the Judicature Act or section 98 of the Civil Procedure Act to review its decision, as the applicants did not meet the settled legal...

Court Disposition

application dismissed

Orders

  • The application to set aside the decree/order dismissing civil suit no. 311 of 2011 is denied.
  • Costs to abide the outcome of the suit.