[2003] UGSC 14

[2003] UGSC 14

The court found that section 99 of the Civil Procedure Act does not apply to Supreme Court proceedings; Rule 4 of the Supreme Court Rules governs extension of time, requiring the applicant to show sufficient reason for delay. The affidavits submitted by the applicant's counsel were found to be false and based on...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2003] UGSC 14
Parties
Applicant: Eric Tibebaga; Respondent: Fr. Narsensio Begumisa; Respondent: B. Ntimba; Respondent: D. Komunda; Respondent: F. Kamondo
Court
Supreme Court of Uganda
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Number
Civil Application 18 of 2002
Procedural Posture
Miscellaneous Application / Ruling
Outcome
application dismissed
Legal Topics
Extension of Time, Affidavit Validity, Hearsay Evidence, Court Discretion
Source Language
en
Civil Procedure Extension of Time Affidavit Validity Hearsay Evidence Court Discretion

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 4 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Eric Tibebaga

Applicant

Fr. Narsensio Begumisa

Respondent

B. Ntimba

Respondent

D. Komunda

Respondent

F. Kamondo

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Miscellaneous Application / Ruling

  1. 1 Whether the applicant has shown sufficient reason for extension of time to file written submissions.
  2. 2 Whether the affidavits in support of the application are valid and comply with the rules.
  3. 3 Whether hearsay evidence in affidavits is admissible in this context.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that section 99 of the Civil Procedure Act does not apply to Supreme Court proceedings; Rule 4 of the Supreme Court Rules governs extension of time, requiring the applicant to show sufficient reason for delay. The affidavits submitted by the applicant's counsel were found to be false and based on hearsay, as they did not align with the facts presented by another staff member and lacked direct evidence from the process server. The court held that only affidavits from persons with direct knowledge of the facts are valid under Rule 42(1). Since the applicant failed to provide a valid affidavit establishing sufficient reason for the delay, the application was unsupported by...

Court Disposition

application dismissed

Orders

  • The application for extension of time is dismissed with costs to the respondents.