[2013] UGSC 12

[2013] UGSC 12

The Supreme Court held that the affidavit supporting the application for extension of time was not incurably defective under the Oaths Act, as there was no credible evidence that the Commissioner for Oaths was not present when the affidavit was sworn. The burden was on the applicants to prove the absence of the...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2013] UGSC 12
Parties
Applicant: Engineer Ephraim Turinawe; Applicant: Dewark Limited; Respondent: Molly Kyalikunda Turinawe; Respondent: Fiona Turinawe; Respondent: Bernes Ankundra; Respondent: Robin Turinawe; Respondent: Davis Turinawe
Court
Supreme Court of Uganda
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Judgment Date
6 June 2013
Procedural Posture
Civil Reference / Reference From Single Judge Ruling on Extension of Time
Outcome
reference dismissed with costs to respondents
Legal Topics
Extension of Time, Affidavit Defects, Matrimonial Property, Preliminary Objection, Right to Fair Hearing
Source Language
english
Civil Procedure Family and Children Extension of Time Affidavit Defects Matrimonial Property Preliminary Objection Right to Fair Hearing

Source-derived case record

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 5 Authorities cited 9 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Engineer Ephraim Turinawe

Applicant

Dewark Limited

Applicant

Molly Kyalikunda Turinawe

Respondent

Fiona Turinawe

Respondent

Bernes Ankundra

Respondent

Robin Turinawe

Respondent

Davis Turinawe

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Reference / Reference From Single Judge Ruling on Extension of Time

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the affidavit supporting the application for extension of time was incurably defective under the Oaths Act.
  2. 2 Whether the applicants were entitled to a reference to a full bench from the decision of the single judge on the preliminary objection.
  3. 3 Whether the respondents showed sufficient cause for extension of time to file the record of appeal.

Ratio Decidendi

The Supreme Court held that the affidavit supporting the application for extension of time was not incurably defective under the Oaths Act, as there was no credible evidence that the Commissioner for Oaths was not present when the affidavit was sworn. The burden was on the applicants to prove the absence of the Commissioner, which they failed to do. The court further held that the single judge acted within her discretion in refusing to refer the preliminary objection to a full bench, as the ruling did not finally dispose of the application and the applicants had the opportunity to challenge the decision after the application was determined. The respondents demonstrated sufficient cause...

Court Disposition

reference dismissed with costs to respondents

Orders

  • The reference is dismissed with costs to the respondents.