| (b) where under any written law an affidavit is authorised to be sworn. –
It appears to me that S.7 does not prohibit the use of statutory declarations in court, provided they are registered under the Registration of Documents Act. Further it is clear that although at the end the Okwir instrument refers to the Statutory Declarations Act, 1835 of the United Kingdom’s it was drafted as an affidavit because of its heading. In any case this would be a technicality curable under Art. 126(2) (e). I think that the instrument is admissible because it is to be used for Court purposes.
Within the same category of affidavits, Mr. Nkurunziza enumerated other affidavits in support of the petition, which he considered to be inadmissible because they were sworn in contravention of Section 5 of the Commissioners for Oaths (Advocates) Act. Learned counsel’s contention is that because the deponents of the various affidavits supporting the Petitioner swore before Mr. Wycliffe Birungi and Mr. Kiyemba-MUtale and yet the same advocates later appeared or were mentioned in this Court as Counsel for the Petitioner, all those affidavits have been rendered invalid and valueless and therefore they should be struck out. These affidavits include those deponed by Okello-Okello Mugalula Joseph, W. Nalusiba, Louis Otika, Dr. Ssekasanvu Emmanuel, Dr. Mukasa D. Bulonge, and Major Rubaramira Ruranga.
In response, Mr. Balikuddembe conceded that the affidavits were indeed sworn before the said advocates as Commissioners for Oath, but he contended that the two advocates were not on his team by the time he filed the petition. He stated that it was at the beginning of the hearing of the petition and when he was on his feet introducing his team of advocates that he received a chit containing the names of the two advocates He then referred us to S.5 of the Act and contended that the proviso thereto applies only where an advocate administers an oath to his own client.
Dostları ilə paylaş: |
