Uganda Corporation Creameries and Another v Reamaton Limited (Civil Application No. 44/98) [1998] UGCA 63 (3 December 1998)

#### TIIE REPT'BLIC OF UGANDA

# IN THE COURT OF APPEAIJ OF UGA. I{DA I

## - AT KAIIPALA

### CIVIIJ APPIJICATION NO. 44,/98

#### UGANDA CORPORATTON CREAMERIES & ANOR. r 3:::::: VERSUS APPL ICANTS

REAMATON LTD. :3::::3:

RES PONDE}TT

CORA.}I : IION. MR. ,fIrSTrCE S. G. ENGWAU, ,rA. (SingLe ,rudge)

#### COURT:

The preliminary point of objection j.s entered on what Ehe deponent, Blaise Namwezi, stated in paragraphs 4, !2 and 14/15 of the main and supplementary affidavits in support of Notice of Mot ion .

It is t.he conEenEion of Mr. Babigumira learned counsel for respondenE, thats Ehose paragraphs relate Eo the service of a copy of the fetter requesting for a copy of the record of proceedings. The deponent failed to serve EhaE. lett.er and afso failed to retain proof of service. In t.he c j- rcumst.ances. the deponenE should have stated the source of her informatsion as she was neiEher a process - server/court clerk who might have effected service. In his view failure to disclose her source of information offended O.17 r.3(1) of Civil Procedure Rules.

Mr. Byenkya, objection on t.he premature in that learned counsel for Ehe applicants opposed Ehe grounds that it. was misconceived and also the deponent in those paragraphs complained or

had merely stated her grounds of belief when you look at the two affidavits as a whole. Learned counsel submitted therefore that paragraphs complained of did not offend $0.17 \text{ r.3(1)}$ of Civil Procedure Rules.

Mr. Byenkya further argued that the objection is premature because the affidavits in question give defined background of the facts of the record of proceedings which facts the applicants are going to rely upon when it comes to showing sufficient cause for the extension of time in the matter.

I have looked at the affidavits in question very carefully and it is my humble view that paragraphs complained of should not be treated in isolation. When the whole affidavits are looked at in details, I am of the view that the deponent had expressed her grounds of belief rather than source of her information.

In the result, I find that the objection raised here does not contravene 0.17 r.3(1) of Civil Procedure Rules. In other words the objection is hereof overruled.

> S. G. ENGWAU JUSTICE OF APPEAL 3.12.98.

> > $\mathcal{L}$