| ORDER 17 RULE 3 OF CP RULES
The last objection to the other affidavits (which are very many) in support of the petition is that the various affidavits were drawn in contravention of the provisions of 0.1 7 Rule 3 of the Civil Procedure Rules. Mr. Nkurunziza submitted, and the learned Solicitor General associated himself with the submissions, that as this petition is not an interlocutory matter, any affidavit which is not confined to such facts as the deponent is able, on his own knowledge to prove, are in breach of the Rule and the affidavit should not be relied upon. He submitted that each of the entire offending affidavits should be rejected and that no parts of the same should be relied on. He relied on Constitutional Petition No.3/99 - P Ssemogerere & Olum vs. Attorney General, (unreported); Constitutional Petition No 1 of 2001, C. Mubiru vs. At. Gen. (unreported); Kabwimukyi vs. Kasigwa (1978) HCB251 and Hudani vs. Tejani and 6 others (unreported) being a ruling of the Principal Judge of the High Court in H.CC No.7 12 of 1995.
The last two authorities are in support of the opinion that a defective part of an affidavit vitiates the whole affidavit. On the basis of these authorities, Mr. Nkurunziza submitted that the affidavit of Winnie Byanyima along with 28 other affidavits offend the Rule because the affidavits or parts of them are based only on information without grounds. Learned Counsel submitted further that 87 other affidavits are based only on belief, without showing grounds for belief.
Dostları ilə paylaş: |
