[2024] UGHC 434

### THE REPUBLIC OF UGANDA

## IN THE HIGH COURT OF UGANDA AT HOIMA

## **REVISION APPLICATION NO. 004 OF 2023** (Arising from Civil Suit No. 062 of 2019)

BYABAGAMBI PHILIP ................................... **APPLICANT**

### **VERSUS**

#### 1. MUGISHA JACKSON KYAKUHA OLIVA::::::::::::::::::::................. **RESPONDENTS**

# BEFORE: HON. JUSTICE BYARUHANGA JESSE RUGYEMA

### **RULING**

- The Applicant brought this Application brought under Sections 83 & 98 $[1]$ CPA, S.33 of the Judicature Act and O.52 CPR for orders to revise the decision of H/W Mfitundinda George, the Ag. Chief Magistrate of Hoima Magistrates' Court dated 12^th of January, 2023, dismissing Civil Suit No. 62 of 2019 on ground that the Chief Magistrate's Court of Hoima lacked local jurisdiction and an Order that Civil Suit No. 62 OF 2019 be reinstated and transferred to the Chief Magistrates' Court of Kibaale. - The Application is supported by the affidavit of the Applicant wherein the grounds of the application are outlined as follows: - a) That the Applicant filed Civil Suit No. 62 of 2019 at the Chief Magistrates' Court of Hoima in 2019. - b) That the land which is the subject of the suit is situate in Kakumiro District. - c) That by 2019 when Civil Suit No. 6 of 2019 was filed in the Chief Magistrate's Court at Hoima, Kakumiro Magistrates' Court was under the Chief Magistrate's Court of Hoima.

- d) That in 2022, a Chief Magistrate was deployed to the Chief Magistrate's Court of Kibaale and Kakumiro Magisterial area was placed under the Chief Magistrates' Court of Kibaale. - e) That Civil Suit No. 62 of 2019 was among the cases that were requested to be transferred from the Chief Magistrates' Court o. Hoima to the Chief Magistrates' Court of Kibaale. - f) That when Civil Suit No. 62 of 2019 came up before the Ag. Chief Magistrate of Hoima on the 12^th January, 2023, H/W Mfitundinda George of the Chief Magistrate's Court of Hoima, dismissed the suit for lack of local jurisdiction. - $[3]$ In his affidavit in reply opposing the application, the $2^{nd}$ Respondent deponed as follows: - a) That it is not true that at the time the Applicant filed **Civil Suit No.** 62 of 2019, Kakumiro Magisterial area was under Hoima Chief Magisterial area, that it ceased to be under Hoima Chief Magisterial area by Statutory Instrument NO.11 of 2017 which came into force on $27^th$ January, 2017. - b) That under Item 37 of S. I No. 11 of 2017, Kakumiro Magistrate's Court was put under Kibaale Chief Magistrates' Court and as such in 2019 when the Applicant filed Civil Suit NO.62 of 2019 in this Registry of Hoima Chief Magistrate's Court, he filed the same in court without jurisdiction and when on the 12^th of January, 2023 the suit came for hearing, the Hoima Chief Magistrates' Court lacked jurisdiction to entertain the same or transfer the same to Kibaale Chief Magistrates' Court.

# Issue's for determination: Whether this is a proper case for revision.

The law providing for the High Court's power of revision is provided under $[4]$ **S.83 of the CPA** which provides as follows:

"The High court may call for the record of any case which has been determined under this Act by any Magistrates' Court, and if that court appears to have; (a) exercised a jurisdiction not vested in it in law;

(b)failed to exercise a jurisdiction so vested; or (c) acted in the exercise of its jurisdiction illegally or with material irregularity or injustice, the High Court may revise the case and may make such order as it thinks fit;..."

- $[5]$ In the instant case, the Applicant submitted that the suit was first filed in Kibaale Chief Magistrates' Court where the court had no posted Chief Magistrate at the time but used the services of the Hoima Chief Magistrate. Tha it was the Chief Magistrate, Hoima who advised that Civil matters of Kibaale Chief Magistrates' Court be filed in Hoima Chief Magistrates' Court from where she would handle them. - In Mabalanganya Vs Sanga (2005) 2 EA 152, the Court of Appeal of $\mathbb{R}$ Tanzania held that in cases where it exercises its revisional jurisdiction, its duty entails examination by the court of the record of any proceedings before the High Court for purposes of satisfying itself as to the correctness, legality or propriety of any proceedings before the High Court. In Munobwa Mohamed Vs UMSC H. C. Civil Revision No. 01 of 2006, Court held that the perimeters set by the court in Mabalanganya (supra) properly apply to the High Court of Uganda in its revisional jurisdiction which is set out in S.83 of the CPA. - $[7]$ In the instant case, upon perusal and examination of the lower court record, I find that it is not true or correct as submitted by the Applicant that the suit was first filed in Kibaale Chief Magistrates' Court where the court had no posted Chief Magistrate at the time and that the Chief Magistrate of Hoima advised that Civil matters in Kibaale Chief Magistrates' Court be filed in Hoima Chief Magistrates' Court. The above contention is not borne by any evidence on record. It is apparent on record that Civil Suit No. 62 of 2019 was first filed in the Chief Magistrates' Court of Hoima on 10^th May, 2019 and not in Kibaale Chief Magistrate's Court. - Counsel for the Respondent submitted that the suit was filed in Hoima $[8]$ Chief Magistrates' Court in 2019 when Kibaale Chief Magistrates' Court had already been created out of the Hoima Chief Magisterial area as per the

- Magistrates' Courts (Magisterial Areas) Instrument, S.1 No. 11 of 2017) Item No.37 which clearly show that Kakumiro District where the subject matter is situate is under Kibaale Chief Magistrates' Court. - $[9]$ Upon further examination of the record and perusal of Magistrates' Courts (Magisterial Area) S. I No. 11 of 2017 whose commencement date is 27^th day of January, 2017, I find that it is clear the Applicant's suit filed on $10^{\rm th}$ May, 2019 was instituted in Hoima Chief Magistrates' Court Registry, a court that lacked jurisdiction over matters arising from Kibaale Chief Magisterial area. - [10] It appears to me that from the Applicant's submissions, by 2019 when the Applicant filed Civil Suit No.62 of 2019 at Hoima Chief Magistrates' Court Registry, though there may have been no Chief Magistrate posted at Kibaale Chief Magistrates' Court, the Kibaale Chief Magistrates' Court was already operational because there is evidence that the Chief Magistrate of Hoima was caretaking the Court. As also revealed by the Applicant, the Chief Magistrate of Hoima was already conducting sessions at Kibaale Chief Magistrate's Court. - [11] Therefore, in the absence of any evidence that the file was first filed in its jurisdiction of Kibaale Chief Magistrates' Court and that the caretaking Chief Magistrate directed for its filing in Hoima Chief Magistrates' Court, I find that the Ag. Chief Magistrate of Hoima was justified in dismissing the file when it was called before him for hearing on $12^{th}$ day of 2023. - [12] In conclusion, I find that the learned Chief Magistrate properly and legally exercised his jurisdiction when he dismissed Civil Suit No. 062 of 2019 for lack of local jurisdiction, for failure to do so, would have amounted to permitting an abuse of court process. The Chief Magistrate could not equally transfer the file to any other court when is it had been filed in a court without jurisdiction. - [13] In the premises, I find that Civil Suit No. 062 of 2019 was filed in court without jurisdiction, there is nothing to be revised by this court. The application is without any merit. It is accordingly dismissed with costs to

the Respondent. The Applicant should proceed and file the suit in a court with jurisdiction subject to the law of limitation.

Order accordingly.

Dated at Hoima this 24^tth day of May, 2024.

Byaruhanga Jesse Rugyema<br>JUDGE.