Apolo Senkeeto v Uganda (Criminal Application No. 1 of 2025) [2025] UGSC 55 (23 December 2025)

l THE REPUBLIC OF UGANDA IN THE SUPREME COURT OF UGANDA AT KAMPALA (CORAM: CHIBITA, JSC;) CRIMINAL APPLICATION IYO. 1 OF 2025 The application was supported by the grounds set out in the afhdavit of the applicant. The respondent filed an affidavit in objection to the bail application. At the hearing of the application, Ms. Murungi Rosemary together with Ms Namatovu Margaret represented the applicant, while Mr. William Moses Ntumwa, Ms. Mary Mugala and Ms Jacqueline 10 APOLO SENKEETO : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : :APPLICANT IrERSUS I5 UGANDA::: : :: : :: :: : : :: : :RESPONDENT RULING OF MIKE J. CHIBITA, JSC The basis of this ruling, stems from a preliminary objection raised by the applicant against the respondent's affidavit, to have it struck out for being defective. 25 By way of Notice of Motion under the provisions of Rules 6(2)(a), 42, 43ll) of the Rules of this Court, the applicant sought to be released on bail pending the hearing and determination of his Criminal Appeal No.O123 of 2025 by this Court. 20 30 I 5 Sarah Mawemuko, Inspectorate Officers, represented the respondent. Counsel for the applicant argued that the respondent's a-ffidavit opposing the bail application was w'rongly formatted in non- compliance with Rules 48 of the Supreme Court Rules, hence being defective because it was titled "Affidavit in Objection to Bail" instead of "Affidavit in Reply''. Counsel therefore prayed that the said affidavit should be struck out. Counsel for the respondent on the other hand contended that this preliminary objection was misconceived. Counsel argued that this was nomenclature and that Court should look at the substance. He submitted that Court will find that the respondent's affidavit was actually an afhdavit in reply. Counsel pointed out that the l"t paragraph of the respondent's affidavit, sworn by Ms. Brenda Kimbugwe Mawanda, Manager Prosecution, Inspectorate of Government, clearly stated that it was an affidavit in reply. Counsel invited Court to find that it was an affidavit in reply even if the title was a bit wordy. In addition to this, Counsel for the respondent also invited Court to reject the applicant's rejoinder for being filed out of time given that timelines must be respected. Counsel for the applicant's explanation for filing outside the Court hling schedules, was that both the applicant and the Justice of Peace had to sign the applicant's affidavit in rejoinder and that at the time of signing, the Justice of Peace was not available for purposes of commissioning the affidavit hence the late filing. l0 15 20 25 ,) l0 Counsel for the applicant prayed that Court considers the affidavit in rejoinder. CONSTDERATION OF COURT I have carefully considered the Preliminary objection together with the submissions of counsel. 10 The main issue to be resolved is whether the misdescription in the title of the respondent's affidavit would render it fundamentally defective to be struck out. Certainly, Rule 48 of the Supreme Court Rules requires any person served with a Notice of Motion to file an a-fhdavit in reply to the l5 sarne. It is apparent that, affidavits in reply a.re a response to the applicant's affidavit refuting or opposing an application made by an applicant hence supporting the respondent's case. A perusa-l of the respondent's affidavit shows that although the affidavit is titled "Affidavit in Objection to Bail", in essence it is an affidavit in reply. Its content clearly addresses the applicant's bail application giving reasons for denying it hence serving the purpose of an affidavit in reply. Indeed, the respondent's first paragraph indicates that it is an affidavit in reply. It is established that Courts are required to dispense justice without excessive focus on technicalities. This Court has asserted that rules of procedure are essentia-l for justice. However, they should not be overly raised to the point of l0 25 5 becoming an obsession. Their pLlrpose is to ensure a ferir irnd orderly legal process to administer justice, not hinder it. Minor deviations or flaws that do not significantly harm the opposing party should not be used to invalidate or impede legal documents in question. See: John Lukoma & 2 Ors v Reglstered Trustees l0 of the Soclety of the Mlsslonarlee of Afrlca (Whtte Fathers). l2o25l ucsc 13 t5 It is my view therefore that the incorrect titling of the respondent's affidavit is trivial and would not disadvantage the applicant or even obscure the matter at hand before this court. This defect would not invalidate the respondent's affidavit given that the substance is evident. Court maintains the inherent power to make such orders as may be necessary for achieving the ends of justice. The prayer to strike out the respondent's affidavit is therefore denied. 20 Lastly regarding the applicant's rejoinder which was filed out of time, I am of the view that sufficient reason has been given for the late filing and the delay was not inordinate to cause any prejudice or miscarriage of justice. I will therefore consider it. I shall proceed to determine the application on its merits. or-J Dated at Kampala this #.Ciday of&w,*k*orr.25 t MIKE J. CHIBITA JUSTICI OF THE SUPREME COURT 4 30