[2004] UGHC 67

[2004] UGHC 67

The court found that although the applicant was not responsible for delays in fixing the hearing date, the application was incompetent for failing to comply with Order 6 rule 1 of the Civil Procedure Rules. The notice of motion was accompanied by an affidavit and unsigned lists, but the absence of signatures and...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2004] UGHC 67
Parties
Applicant: Willing Tumukunde; Respondent: Abusagi Karungi
Court
High Court of Uganda
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Number
HCT-05-CV-MA-0115-2000
Procedural Posture
Miscellaneous Application / Ruling
Outcome
application struck out with costs to respondent
Legal Topics
Striking Out Application, Order 6 Rule 1 Requirements, Affidavit Evidence, Service of Process
Source Language
en
Civil Procedure Striking Out Application Order 6 Rule 1 Requirements Affidavit Evidence Service of Process

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 2 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Willing Tumukunde

Applicant

Abusagi Karungi

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Miscellaneous Application / Ruling

  1. 1 Whether the application was incompetent for lack of compliance with Order 6 rule 1 of the Civil Procedure Rules.
  2. 2 Whether the delay in serving the application rendered it invalid.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that although the applicant was not responsible for delays in fixing the hearing date, the application was incompetent for failing to comply with Order 6 rule 1 of the Civil Procedure Rules. The notice of motion was accompanied by an affidavit and unsigned lists, but the absence of signatures and dates on the required documents rendered the application defective. The court held that compliance with Order 6 rule 1 is mandatory where the application relies on documents beyond affidavits, and the lack thereof offends the provision and renders the application incompetent. The application was accordingly struck out with costs to the respondent.

Court Disposition

application struck out with costs to respondent

Orders

  • The application is struck out.
  • Costs awarded to the respondent.