Lugazi Progressive & Another v Sserunjogi & 4 oers (Misc.App. No.50 Of 2000) (Misc.App. No.50 of 2000) [2000] UGHC 32 (28 December 2000)

{\rtf1\ansi\ansicpg1252\uc1\deff0\stshfdbch0\stshfloch0\stshfhich0\stshfbi0\deflang2057\deflangfe2057{\fonttbl{\f0\froman\fcharset0\fprq2{\*\panose 02020603050405020304}Times New Roman;}{\f36\froman\fcharset238\fprq2 Times New Roman CE;} {\f37\froman\fcharset204\fprq2 Times New Roman Cyr;}{\f39\froman\fcharset161\fprq2 Times New Roman Greek;}{\f40\froman\fcharset162\fprq2 Times New Roman Tur;}{\f41\froman\fcharset177\fprq2 Times New Roman (Hebrew);} {\f42\froman\fcharset178\fprq2 Times New Roman (Arabic);}{\f43\froman\fcharset186\fprq2 Times New Roman Baltic;}{\f44\froman\fcharset163\fprq2 Times New Roman (Vietnamese);}}{\colortbl;\red0\green0\blue0;\red0\green0\blue255;\red0\green255\blue255; \red0\green255\blue0;\red255\green0\blue255;\red255\green0\blue0;\red255\green255\blue0;\red255\green255\blue255;\red0\green0\blue128;\red0\green128\blue128;\red0\green128\blue0;\red128\green0\blue128;\red128\green0\blue0;\red128\green128\blue0; \red128\green128\blue128;\red192\green192\blue192;}{\stylesheet{\ql \li0\ri0\widctlpar\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0 \fs24\lang2057\langfe2057\cgrid\langnp2057\langfenp2057 \snext0 Normal;}{\*\cs10 \additive \ssemihidden Default Paragraph Font;}{\*\ts11\tsrowd\trftsWidthB3\trpaddl108\trpaddr108\trpaddfl3\trpaddft3\trpaddfb3\trpaddfr3\trcbpat1\trcfpat1\tscellwidthfts0\tsvertalt\tsbrdrt\tsbrdrl\tsbrdrb\tsbrdrr\tsbrdrdgl\tsbrdrdgr\tsbrdrh\tsbrdrv \ql \li0\ri0\widctlpar\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0 \fs20\lang1024\langfe1024\cgrid\langnp1024\langfenp1024 \snext11 \ssemihidden Normal Table;}{ \s15\ql \li0\ri0\sb100\sa100\sbauto1\saauto1\widctlpar\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0 \fs24\lang2057\langfe2057\cgrid\langnp2057\langfenp2057 \sbasedon0 \snext15 \styrsid12216337 Normal (Web);}{\s16\ql \li0\ri0\widctlpar \tqc\tx4153\tqr\tx8306\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0 \fs24\lang2057\langfe2057\cgrid\langnp2057\langfenp2057 \sbasedon0 \snext16 \styrsid16275173 footer;}{\*\cs17 \additive \sbasedon10 \styrsid16275173 page number;}} {\*\latentstyles\lsdstimax156\lsdlockeddef0}{\*\pgptbl {\pgp\ipgp0\itap0\li0\ri0\sb0\sa0}}{\*\rsidtbl \rsid1974642\rsid3950822\rsid7030405\rsid8656735\rsid9782536\rsid11408858\rsid12216337\rsid14102119\rsid14830933\rsid16275173\rsid16525304} {\*\generator Microsoft Word 11.0.5604;}{\info{\title -\'93\'91 }{\author jchemeri}{\operator jchemeri}{\creatim\yr2001\mo1\dy15\hr3\min16}{\revtim\yr2001\mo1\dy19\hr2\min22}{\version3}{\edmins36}{\nofpages6}{\nofwords1488}{\nofchars8485}{\*\company JSI} {\nofcharsws9954}{\vern24689}}\paperw11906\paperh16838 \widowctrl\ftnbj\aenddoc\noxlattoyen\expshrtn\noultrlspc\dntblnsbdb\nospaceforul\hyphcaps0\formshade\horzdoc\dgmargin\dghspace180\dgvspace180\dghorigin1800\dgvorigin1440\dghshow1\dgvshow1 \jexpand\viewkind1\viewscale100\pgbrdrhead\pgbrdrfoot\splytwnine\ftnlytwnine\htmautsp\nolnhtadjtbl\useltbaln\alntblind\lytcalctblwd\lyttblrtgr\lnbrkrule\nobrkwrptbl\snaptogridincell\allowfieldendsel\wrppunct \asianbrkrule\rsidroot12216337\newtblstyruls\nogrowautofit \fet0{\*\ftnsep \pard\plain \ql \li0\ri0\widctlpar\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0 \fs24\lang2057\langfe2057\cgrid\langnp2057\langfenp2057 {\insrsid16275173 \chftnsep \par }}{\*\ftnsepc \pard\plain \ql \li0\ri0\widctlpar\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0 \fs24\lang2057\langfe2057\cgrid\langnp2057\langfenp2057 {\insrsid16275173 \chftnsepc \par }}{\*\aftnsep \pard\plain \ql \li0\ri0\widctlpar\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0 \fs24\lang2057\langfe2057\cgrid\langnp2057\langfenp2057 {\insrsid16275173 \chftnsep \par }}{\*\aftnsepc \pard\plain \ql \li0\ri0\widctlpar\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0 \fs24\lang2057\langfe2057\cgrid\langnp2057\langfenp2057 {\insrsid16275173 \chftnsepc \par }}\sectd \linex0\headery708\footery708\colsx708\endnhere\sectlinegrid360\sectdefaultcl\sectrsid8656735\sftnbj {\footer \pard\plain \s16\ql \li0\ri0\widctlpar \tqc\tx4153\tqr\tx8306\pvpara\phmrg\posxr\posy0\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid7030405 \fs24\lang2057\langfe2057\cgrid\langnp2057\langfenp2057 {\field{\*\fldinst {\cs17\insrsid16275173 PAGE }}{\fldrslt { \cs17\lang1024\langfe1024\noproof\insrsid14102119 1}}}{\cs17\insrsid16275173 \par }\pard \s16\ql \li0\ri360\widctlpar\tqc\tx4153\tqr\tx8306\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin360\lin0\itap0\pararsid16275173 {\insrsid16275173 \par }}{\*\pnseclvl1\pnucrm\pnstart1\pnindent720\pnhang {\pntxta .}}{\*\pnseclvl2\pnucltr\pnstart1\pnindent720\pnhang {\pntxta .}}{\*\pnseclvl3\pndec\pnstart1\pnindent720\pnhang {\pntxta .}}{\*\pnseclvl4\pnlcltr\pnstart1\pnindent720\pnhang {\pntxta )}} {\*\pnseclvl5\pndec\pnstart1\pnindent720\pnhang {\pntxtb (}{\pntxta )}}{\*\pnseclvl6\pnlcltr\pnstart1\pnindent720\pnhang {\pntxtb (}{\pntxta )}}{\*\pnseclvl7\pnlcrm\pnstart1\pnindent720\pnhang {\pntxtb (}{\pntxta )}}{\*\pnseclvl8 \pnlcltr\pnstart1\pnindent720\pnhang {\pntxtb (}{\pntxta )}}{\*\pnseclvl9\pnlcrm\pnstart1\pnindent720\pnhang {\pntxtb (}{\pntxta )}}\pard\plain \s15\ql \li0\ri0\sb100\sa240\sbauto1\sl360\slmult1 \widctlpar\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0\ipgp1\pararsid3950822 \fs24\lang2057\langfe2057\cgrid\langnp2057\langfenp2057 {\b\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid3950822\charrsid11408858 }{ \b\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid12216337\charrsid11408858 THE REPUBLIC OF UGANDA}{\b\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid3950822\charrsid11408858 \par }{\b\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid12216337\charrsid11408858 \line IN THE HIGH COURT OF UGANDA, AT MBARARA}{\b\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid3950822\charrsid11408858 \par MISC. APPLICATION NO.0050 OF 2000 \par \line Arising From LCSC NO.24 OF 1997 \par }{\b\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid12216337\charrsid11408858 \line 1. LUGAZI PROGRESSIVE SCHOOL}{\b\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid11408858 ) \line 2. IMMACULATE MUTUTA}{\b\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid12216337\charrsid11408858 )}{ \b\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid3950822\charrsid11408858 \'85\'85\'85\'85\'85\'85\'85\'85\'85APPLICANT/DEFENDANT \par \line }{\b\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid12216337\charrsid11408858 VS}{\b\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid3950822\charrsid11408858 \par SSERUNJOGI }{\b\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid14102119 AND 4 }{\b\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid12216337\charrsid11408858 OTHERS}{\b\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid3950822\charrsid11408858 \'85\'85\'85\'85\'85\'85\'85\'85\'85}{ \b\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid14102119 \'85\'85\'85\'85\'85\'85\'85\'85}{\b\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid12216337\charrsid11408858 RESPONDENT/PLAINTIFF}{\b\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid3950822\charrsid11408858 \par }{\b\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid12216337\charrsid11408858 \line BEFORE: }{\b\ul\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid12216337\charrsid11408858 THE HON. MR. JUSTICE V. F. MUSOKE\emdash KIBUUKA }{ \b\ul\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid3950822\charrsid11408858 \par }{\b\ul\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid12216337\charrsid11408858 \line RULING}{\b\ul\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid3950822\charrsid11408858 \par }{\ul\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid12216337\charrsid9782536 }{\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid12216337\charrsid9782536 \line Two preliminary objections were raise d by learned counsel, Mr. Zehurikize, when this application was called for hearing. He was appearing for the respondents.}{\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid3950822 \par }{\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid12216337\charrsid9782536 The application was filed in this court seeking a revisional order setting aside a judgment and orders against the applicants. The ju dgment was passed by the LC 1 court of Lugazi in Mbarara Municipality in Civil Suit No. 24 of 1997 of that court. The order was given by the Chief Magistrate at Mbarara allowing the LC 1 Court of L}{\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid3950822 ugazi to proceed and execute it}{\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid12216337\charrsid9782536 s judgment mentioned above.}{\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid3950822 \par }{\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid12216337\charrsid9782536 Upon prior application by her, to Mbarara Municipal Council, Immaculate Mututa, the second applicant, was, on 22/3/93, allocated plots 1, 3, 5, 7 and 9, along Katanywa Road, in Mbarara Municipality. She needed those plots in order to establish Lugazi Pro gressive School, the first, applicant. Apparently, the land, or at least part of it, had, prior to the allocation, been occupied by the respondents as customary tenants. \par \line After the allocation, the se}{\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid3950822 cond applicant appears to have }{\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid12216337\charrsid9782536 been advised by Muni cipal Council, to compensate the respondents but to no avail. Instead, the second respondent embarked upon developing the land establishing and operating the first applicant. The respondents then sued the applicants in the LC 1 court of Lugazi. The court,

after hearing the case, gave judgment in favour of the respondents. The Chief Magistrate of Mbarara subsequently allowed the LC 1 court of Lugazi, in accordance with the provisions of subsection (3) of section 4 of the Resistance Committees (Judicial Powe rs) Statute, 1988, to go ahead and execute its judgment. This application now seeks a revisional order setting aside both the LC 1 court\rquote s judgment and the Chief Magistrate\rquote s order allowing the LC1 court to execute the judgment, on the ground that the judgment was a nullity owing to alleged lack of compet}{\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid3950822 ent jurisdiction in the matter. \par }{\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid12216337\charrsid9782536 \line The first objection raised by learned counsel, Mr. Zehurikize, is that this application is not competent because the affidavit, deponed in support of it must be struck out ow ing to the fact that the two Annextures attached to it, and marked as annextures A and B, were not verified by the Commissioner for Oaths. That omission, according to counsel, contravenes rule 8 of the Commissioner for Oaths Rules. Rule 8 of the Commissio ner for Oaths Rules, according to learned counsel is mandatory and non-compliance with it would render the affidavit to which annextures are attached defective and must be struck out. \par \line To support his submissio}{\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid3950822 n, learned counsel relied upon }{\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid12216337\charrsid9782536 two decisions of this court. One is the decision in }{ \ul\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid3950822 Feroz Kassam }{\ul\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid12216337\charrsid9782536 v. The Commissioner }{\ul\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid3950822 of Land Registration, Misc. Appl}{ \ul\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid12216337\charrsid9782536 . No. 24 of 1996. }{\ul\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid12216337\charrsid3950822 The other is James}{\ul\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid12216337\charrsid9782536 Matsiko, Advocate vs. Uganda }{\ul\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid3950822 Railways Corporation, Misc. Appl}{\ul\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid12216337\charrsid9782536 . No. 826 of 1998. }{ \lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid12216337\charrsid9782536 I have had the advantage of read ing both those decisions. In both decisions this court held that where annextures to an affidavit have not been verified as required by rule 8 of the Commissioner for Oaths Rules, the application supported by such an affidavit would}{ \lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid3950822 }{\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid12216337\charrsid9782536 have no probative value. As a result, it would be struck out and the motion would be dismissed owing to the fact that it cannot stand without an affidavit in support.}{\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid3950822 \par }{\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid12216337\charrsid9782536 However, I am unable to follow the decision in both cases cited by learned counsel. For the Court of Appeal of Uganda in }{ \ul\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid12216337\charrsid9782536 Uganda Corporation Creamaries Ltd. And Henry Kawalya vs. Reamation Ltd., }{\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid12216337\charrsid9782536 judicially considered the same point. The Cour}{ \lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid3950822 t of Appeal, per Engwau, J. A.}{\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid3950822\charrsid9782536 stated}{\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid12216337\charrsid9782536 , \'93As }{ \ul\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid12216337\charrsid9782536 long as an affidavit is properly sworn before a Commissioner for Oaths, it is compet ent. It is also my very well considered view that such an affidavit may or may not have exhibits attached to it. In the event of exhibits having been attached to affidavits, then all such exhibits must be sealed by the Commissioner for Oaths and must be m arked with serial letters of identification as required by Rule 8.\'94 }{\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid12216337\charrsid9782536 (Emphasis Added) }{\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid3950822 \par }{\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid12216337\charrsid9782536 \line }{\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid3950822 }{\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid12216337\charrsid9782536 Elsewhere in the ruling, Engwau J. A. drew a distinction between \'93exhibits\'94 and \'93annextures\'94 attached to affidavits commissioned by Commissioner for Oaths. The Court of Appeal was of the view that rule 8, of the Commissioner for Oaths Rules, \line applied only to exhibits which have been produced and exhibited to a court during a trial or hearing, in proof of facts. The rule did not apply to annextures to affidavits which are not exhibits. The court stated, at page 4 of the ruling. \'93In }{ \ul\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid12216337\charrsid9782536 my view, whether or not those annextures have been securely sealed with the seal of the advocate who commissioned the affidavits thereof, does not offend Rule 8 because they were not exhibits produced and exhibited to a court during a trial or hearing in proof of facts. In any case, the annextures in the present case are not in dispute. Even if those annextures were detached, the affidavits thereof would still be competent td support the Noti ce of Motion. Rule 8, though mandatory, is procedural and does not go to the root as to competence of affidavits.\'94 }{\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid12216337\charrsid9782536 \line I fully agree with the reasoning of the Court of Appeal in this matter. Indeed, I think the words of Sir Charles Newbold, P.1in }{\ul\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid12216337\charrsid9782536 Probhudas (N) And Co.}{ \ul\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid3950822 vs. Standard Bank, (1968) E.}{\ul\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid12216337\charrsid9782536 A 670, at P. 683, }{\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid12216337\charrsid9782536 have particular relevance to the instant application. The learned President of the Court of Appeal observed to the effect that courts should not treat every incorrect act as a nullity, with the conse quence that every thing founded upon it is itself a nullity unless the incorrect act is of a most fundamental nature. Matters of procedure are not normally of a fundamental nature. I do not think that the effect of a failure by a Commissioner for Oaths to comply with the procedure laid down in rule 8 of the Commissioner for Oaths Rules should result into the invalidation of the affidavit to which the unverified exhibi}{\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid11408858 ts or annextures are attached. }{ \lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid12216337\charrsid9782536 Rather, the most a court would do would be to reject the exhibits or annextures themselves as they would not be competently presented. The affidavit should then be considered for whatever it is worth without those exhibits of annextures.}{\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid11408858 \par }{\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid12216337\charrsid9782536 I also agree that rule 8 relates to exhibits and the word \lquote annexture\rquote which cannot be used interchangeably with}{\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid11408858 }{ \lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid12216337\charrsid9782536 exhibit should not be read into it. I find all the circumstances and facts of the instant application to be similar to those which pertained in the }{ \ul\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid12216337\charrsid9782536 Uganda Creamaries Ltd. }{\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid12216337\charrsid9782536 case. Besides, a decision of the Court of Ap peal binds this court. I have no option by to follow it.}{\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid11408858 \par }{\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid12216337\charrsid9782536 Accordingly, I agree with Mr. W. Birungi that the first objection lacks merit and must be over-ruled. And it is overruled.}{\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid11408858 \par }{\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid12216337\charrsid9782536 \line The second objection is that the affidavit in support of the motion be str uck out because it was deponed by the second applicant in support of a motion which contains a lie to the effect that the second applicant is the registered proprietor of the disputed land. Learned Counsel for the applicants submitted that the combined ef fect of paragraphs 2(iii) of the motion and paragraph 2, of the affidavit in support, which according to counsel, must be read together, should be that the affidavit contains a falsehood and should be struck out. Counsel relies upon the authority of }{ \ul\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid12216337\charrsid9782536 Bitaitana }{\ul\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid11408858\charrsid9782536 vs.}{\ul\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid12216337\charrsid9782536 Kananura (1977) HCB, 34. }{ \lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid12216337\charrsid9782536 This court held in that case that any inconsistencies found in an affidavit however minor, cannot be ignored since a sworn affidavit is not a d}{ \lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid11408858 ocument to be treated lightly. }{\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid12216337\charrsid9782536 If it contains an obvious falsehood, then it all naturally becomes suspect. And an application supported by a false affidavit is bound to fail.}{\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid11408858 \par }{\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid12216337\charrsid9782536 I have had }{\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid11408858\charrsid9782536 occasion}{\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid12216337\charrsid9782536 to read the ruling in }{ \ul\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid12216337\charrsid9782536 Bitaitana\rquote s }{\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid12216337\charrsid9782536 case. I do not think that it is applicable in the instant application. Counsel for the respondents ha s pointed to the claim contained in paragraph}{\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid11408858 \par }{\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid12216337\charrsid9782536 2(iii) of the motion which reads: \line \'93(iii) The applicants/Defendants is the registered proprietor of the suit land.\'94}{\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid11408858 \par }{\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid12216337\charrsid9782536 He argued that the affidavit which supports that averment is false. He argues that the applicants have never been and are not registered proprietors of the disputed land. \line Although I am aware that an affidavit in support of a motion is, indeed part of the motion, I do not think that it is legally tenable to argue that the reverse is also true. I d o not think that a motion which is supported by an affidavit becomes part of the affidavit in support. For the affidavit contains evidence and is sworn before a Commissioner for Oaths while the motion contains ordinary pleadings. Anything which might be f alse and contained in the motion }{\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid11408858\charrsid9782536 cannot}{\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid12216337\charrsid9782536 , therefore, be said to render the affidavit false because it is not part of it. }{ \lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid11408858 \par }{\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid12216337\charrsid9782536 Besides, the question of who is the owner or registered proprietor of the land in dispute, in the instant case, is a question of evidence in a substantive suit pending before this court. It would be prejudicial to decided it upon a preliminary objection during which no such evidence is adduced by any of }{\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid11408858 the parties. T}{ \lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid12216337\charrsid9782536 hen affidavit in reply notwithstanding. \line }{\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid11408858 }{\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid12216337\charrsid9782536 For those reasons, I do not consider the rule in }{\ul\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid12216337\charrsid9782536 Bitaitana\rquote s }{\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid12216337\charrsid9782536 case (supra) to be either relevant or applicable to the instant application. Consequently the second objection also fails. \line }{\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid11408858 }{\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid12216337\charrsid9782536 Both objections are over-ruled. Costs in the cause. The substantive application is to be heard by this court on Monday, 18th January, 2001 at 9.00 a.m. The Deputy Registrar is to notify both parties of that date and time.}{ \lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid11408858 \par }{\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid12216337\charrsid9782536 \line }{\b\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid12216337\charrsid11408858 V. F.}{\b\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid11408858\charrsid11408858 Musoke Kibuu}{ \b\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid12216337\charrsid11408858 ka \line Judge \line 28/1 2/2000}{\b\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid11408858 \par }{\b\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid12216337\charrsid11408858 \line }{\b\ul\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid12216337\charrsid9782536 Order: }{\b\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid12216337\charrsid9782536 \line }{ \lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid12216337\charrsid9782536 The Deputy Registrar to deliver this ruling on a date fixed by him.}{\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid11408858 \par }{\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid12216337\charrsid9782536 \line }{\b\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid12216337\charrsid11408858 V. F.}{\b\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid11408858\charrsid11408858 Musoke Kib}{ \b\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid12216337\charrsid11408858 uuka \line Judge \par }\pard\plain \ql \li0\ri0\sl360\slmult1\widctlpar\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid3950822 \fs24\lang2057\langfe2057\cgrid\langnp2057\langfenp2057 {\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid14830933\charrsid9782536 \par }}