[2021] UGHCLD 175
The trial magistrate, having been retired by the Judicial Service Commission prior to delivering judgment, lacked the requisite judicial authority and jurisdiction to pronounce judgment in the matter. The judgment delivered on July 9, 2015, after the magistrate's retirement on February 11, 2015, is a nullity in law....
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2021] UGHCLD 175
- Parties
- Appellant: Alikisanderena Nakintu; Respondent: Kiraza Paul
- Court
- HC: Land Division (Uganda)
- Jurisdiction
- Uganda
- Case Number
- Civil Appeal No. 29 of 2015
- Procedural Posture
- Civil Appeal / Judgment
- Outcome
- appeal_allowed
- Judges
- Kawesa, J
- Legal Topics
- Judicial Authority, Jurisdiction of Magistrate, Illegality in Judicial Process, Nullity of Judgment
- Source Language
- en
Source-derived case record
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
Alikisanderena Nakintu
Appellant
Kiraza Paul
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Judgment
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the trial magistrate had jurisdiction to deliver judgment after retirement from judicial service.
- 2 Whether the judgment delivered by a retired magistrate is a nullity and should be set aside.
Ratio Decidendi
The trial magistrate, having been retired by the Judicial Service Commission prior to delivering judgment, lacked the requisite judicial authority and jurisdiction to pronounce judgment in the matter. The judgment delivered on July 9, 2015, after the magistrate's retirement on February 11, 2015, is a nullity in law. The principle that an illegality vitiates all proceedings applies, and the judgment cannot be allowed to stand. Consequently, the appellate court struck out the judgment and ordered a retrial before a competent magistrate.
Court Disposition
appeal_allowed
Orders
- The appeal is allowed.
- The judgment of the lower court is struck out as a nullity.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
42 paragraphs
#### THE REPUBLIC OF UGANDA
#### IN THE HIGH COURT OF UGANDA AT KAMPALA
## [LAND DIVISION]
#### CIVIL APPEAL NO.029 OF 2015
ALIKISANDERENA NAKINTU:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::APPELLANT
#### VERSUS
KIRAZA PAUL::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::RESPONDENT
#### BEFORE: HON. MR. JUSTICE HENRY I. KAWESA
#### JUDGMENT:
The Appellant raised this appeal vide a memorandum of Appeal raising five grounds of appeal.
The Appellant prays that;
- i) The appeal be allowed and the judgment passed by the Learned Trial Magistrate be quashed and set aside, - ii) Costs of the appeal and;
This appeal was filed by the Appellant who filed submissions. As a first Appellate Court, it is the duty of this Court to review the evidence and give it a fresh scrutiny in order to reach its own conclusions thereon.
The Court however, notes that in the arguments raised for the Applicant underground I, the Appellant's counsel referred Court to an illegality committed during the trial, which, if proved, vitiates the entire lower Court findings.
This is the fact that the trial magistrate had no authority to pass the judgment because she had been retired from service by the Judicial Service Commission.
The Appellant drew to the attention of Court the fact that the hearing of the case in the lower Court was concluded and *locus* visited on 7th January 2015. The Magistrate was however involved in disciplinary proceedings in the Judicial Service Commission in the matter of *Namata Harriet (Grade I) and Ibrahim Kibuuka.*
The Appellant attached a certified copy of the Judicial Service Commission proceedings, showing that the trial Magistrate was charged, the trial conducted and she was found guilty and was convicted.
As a consequence, the Judicial Service Commission receded that she be retired in in the interest of the public. The decision is dated February 11, 2015. However, inspite of the above, she sat in the Judgment of this matter and pronounced it in this case on July 9, 2015 after the forced retirement. This is very fatal.
As rightly argued by the Appellant's Counsel, a trial Magistrate should be clothed with power to try a matter as per Section 5 of the Magistrates Court Act.
This case is unfortunately one, covered by the principle in *Makula International versus His Eminence Cardinal Wamala Nsubuga (1982) HCB II*, where Court held that;
*"An illegality once pointed out to Court, vitiates everything and cannot be allowed to stand".*
# *Mubiru & Ors versus Kayiwa (1979) HCB 212* guides that;
"*A judgment passed without judicial incident is a nullity"*
Therefore a Magistrate retired in February 2015, could not write a judgment on July 2015 when the jurisdiction had been removed from her. It follows that the judgement is nullity and cannot be allowed to stand. The *a nullity* judgment does not warrant an examination of other grounds raised under it since the findings themselves are a nullity.
This issue terminates this appeal in that the judgment was *a nullity* and it cannot stand and it is struck out.
This Court allows this appeal and makes an order that the file be remitted back to Luwero and a fresh trial be conducted (retrial) before another competent Magistrate.
Costs are allowed to the Appellant.
I so order
..........................
Henry I. Kawesa
## JUDGE
08/11/2021
## 08/11/2021:
Katamba Sowali for the Appellant.
Appellant present.
Both the Respondent and Counsel absent.
Court:
Judgment delivered to the parties above.
..........................
Henry I. Kawesa
## JUDGE
08/11/2021