Court name
High Court of Uganda
Case number
HCT-05-CV-MA-2004/203
Judgment date
27 April 2005

Godfrey Katunda v Betty Atuhaire Bwesharire,Naboth Atamba (HCT-05-CV-MA-2004/203) [2005] UGHC 104 (27 April 2005);

Cite this case
[2005] UGHC 104

 

THEREPUBLIC OF UGANDA
IN THE H
IGH COURT OF UGANDA AT MBARARA
 
HCT-05-CV-MA-0203-2004
(From LC I Proceedings of Kyobukyera Kyeibare)
GODFREY KATUNDA …………………………………………………………….APPLICANT
VS

1. BETTY ATUHAIRE BWESHARIRE]
2. NABOTH ATAMBA] ……………………..………………. RESPONDENT
BEFORE: THE HON. MR. JUSTICE P. K. MUGAMBA 

RULING
Counsel for the respondents, Mr. Ngaruye, raised preliminary objections to the application which Mr. Bwengye, counsel for the applicants was sent to prosecute. A summary of these objections should serve for perspective.
1. That the affidavits of Kamujanduzi, one sworn on 24th November 2004 and the other sworn on 31st January 2005 contradicted each other in factual content and should be struck out because they are false. Similarly the affidavit of Ahimbisibwe sworn on 31st January 2005 factually varied from that of the applicant and because there was a manifest falsehood the affidavits should be struck out.
2. That the affidavit of Ahimbisibwe David dated 31st January 2005 should be struck out also because Ahimbisibwe lacked capacity to swear the affidavit, being neither a holder of powers of attorney, a person duly authorized or an Advocate for the applicant.
3. That the two affidavits of the applicant sworn on 31st January 2005 and that of Ahimbisibwe sworn the same day were supplementary affidavits filed after the respondents had filed their replies and as such the affidavits and what annextures they carried should be struck out because they were filed without leave of court.
4. That prayer 6 of the application sought return of cattle and restoration of property worth Shs. 30,000,000/= but because appropriate fees was not paid the application was thereby rendered incompetent.
5. That the applicant has no cause of action in the application given that the second prayer being sought regards a warrant which is annexture G to the applicant’s affidavit and the parties mentioned in the warrant are Beatrice Bwesharire and Amos Kamujanduzi.
It is premature to speak of obvious falsehoods whatever the contradictions in the first point of objection might be. In the cases of Jetha Brothers vs Mbarara