[2005] UGCommC 56

[2005] UGCommC 56

The court held that while a Notice of Motion supported by affidavit is exempt from the general requirements of Order 6 rule 1(b) CPR, the affidavit in support of the application was defective because it failed to distinguish between facts based on the deponent's knowledge and those based on information and belief,...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2005] UGCommC 56
Parties
Applicant: Samwiri Kibuuka; Respondent: Eriya Lugeya Lubanga
Court
Commercial Court of Uganda
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Number
High Court Miscellaneous Application No. 656 of 2005
Procedural Posture
Miscellaneous Application / Ruling on Application to Reinstate Proceedings
Outcome
application dismissed with costs
Legal Topics
Reinstatement of Proceedings, Affidavit Defects, Notice of Motion Requirements, Technicalities in Procedure
Source Language
en
Civil Procedure Commercial and Corporate Reinstatement of Proceedings Affidavit Defects Notice of Motion Requirements Technicalities in Procedure

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

Samwiri Kibuuka

Applicant

Eriya Lugeya Lubanga

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Miscellaneous Application / Ruling on Application to Reinstate Proceedings

  1. 1 Whether the application to reinstate proceedings was properly before the court despite procedural defects.
  2. 2 Whether the supporting affidavit was defective for failing to distinguish between facts based on knowledge and belief.
  3. 3 Whether failure to cite the enabling law in the application was fatal to the application.

Ratio Decidendi

The court held that while a Notice of Motion supported by affidavit is exempt from the general requirements of Order 6 rule 1(b) CPR, the affidavit in support of the application was defective because it failed to distinguish between facts based on the deponent's knowledge and those based on information and belief, as required by Order 17 rule 3(1) CPR. The absence of such distinction rendered the affidavit unreliable and insufficient to support the application. The court further held that failure to cite the enabling law in the application was a mere technicality and not fatal. However, due to the defective affidavit, there was no evidence to support the application, and the application...

Court Disposition

application dismissed with costs

Orders

  • The application to reinstate proceedings is dismissed with costs.