[2025] UGHCCD 83

# THE REPUBLIC OF UGANDA

## IN THE HIGH COURT OF UGANDA AT KAMPALA

# (CIVIL DIVISION)

# CIVIL REVISION NO.17 OF 2024

## (ARISING FROM MISCELLANEOUS CAUSE NO.293 OF 2022)

1. NAMATOVU PROSSY

**2. NABWAMI MARGARET ::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::**

## **VERSUS**

<table>

NAKIGANDA RUTH ::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::

BEFORE: HON. JUSTICE SIMON PETER M. KINOBE

# **RULING**

## BACKGROUND:

The Applicant brought this application Under the provisions Section 33 of the Judicature Act Cap 13, Section 83 and 98 of the Civil Procedure Act Cap 71, Section 207 (1) (b) of the Magistrates Courts Act (As Amended) and Order 52 Rules 1, 2 and 3 of the Civil Procedure Rules 5.171-1) for orders that;

1. The Ruling and Orders of the Senior Grade One Magistrate, His Worship Igga Adiru be revised and set aside.

## 2. Costs of this application be provided for.

## APPLICANTS' CASE

The grounds of the application are specifically set out in the affidavit of NABWAMI MARGARET which briefly are that;

- a) The Applicants filed Misc. Cause No. 293 of 2022 in the Chief Magistrate's Court of Makindye at Makindye for recovery of UGX 24,000,000 (Uganda Shillings Twenty-Four Million Only from the Respondent in distress for rent. - b) The said Application was heard and determined by His Worship Igga Adiru a Grade One Magistrate who had no pecuniary Jurisdiction to entertain the same. - c) The said Magistrate based her decision on a void decision of the L. C 1 Court of St. Benedict Village which had conferred ownership of the subject property unto the Respondent. - d) The Decision made by St. Benedict Village LC. I Court has since been declared to be void and the same was set aside by the High Court, Civil Division Application No. 29 of 2023 (Nabwami Margaret Vs. Nakiganda Ruth Viola). - e) The Trial Magistrate (His Worship Igga Adiru) exercised jurisdiction not vested in it when they made the impugned decision where the value of the subject matter is way beyond their pecuniary jurisdiction. - f) That it is just, fair and equitable that this application is allowed, the Ruling and Orders of the Grade One Magistrate be revised and set aside.

## RESPONDENT'S CASE.

1st July 2025

In opposition to the application, the 1st respondent filed an affidavit in reply deponed to by Nakiganda Ruth Viola which states briefly that;

- a) In about 2021, she started seeing unknown men near her home who seemed to be investigating something in the area as they appeared to be close to the applicant's son Yiga Godfrey and at one time she saw them parking in the neighborhood and Yiga Godfrey approached them and engaged in a discussion and after a short while they disappeared. - b) A few days later she received sermons from St. Benedict LC1 demanding for appearance and it is at the LC 1 court that she presented her ownership of documents and her witnesses. Resultantly the LC court determined the matter in her favor. - c) The applicants proceeded to file Misc. Cause no. 293 of 2022 against her before the chief magistrate's court at Makindye before His Worship Yiga Adiru where the same was prosecuted and determined in her favour. - d) After two years from the date of the ruling, the applicants filed this case seeking revision of the ruling in a matter they filed themselves with the guidance of their former lawyers M/s Ruyondo and Co. Advocates. - e) The said application is an abuse of court process as it is a principle of law that litigation should come to an end but unfortunately the applicants keep filing case after case that she does not have time to attend to her work station because she is always in court defending herself over property she bought from the 2nd applicant and her children over 20 years ago.

1st July 2025

- f) She purchased the suit property from the 2nd applicant and her sons and an agreement was executed in 1999 where she took full possession of the same to date. - g) The 2nd applicant is only using the 1st applicant who was not there at the time the execution of the sale agreement to undermine the transaction concluded in 1999. - h) She came to know of the 2nd applicant in 1994 when she came with her sons to negotiate a tenancy arrangement and indeed it was agreed that the defendant and her sons would collect money on the basis of three academic terms until she accepted their offer to purchase the suit property in 1999 and developed the property. - i) Ever since the sale agreement was executed she has enjoyed quiet possession of the suit property when the applicants started laying false claims over the suit property. - j) At no point did the applicants approach her or serve her any correspondence of the claim in rental arrears. - k) The only duty she had as a defendant was to defend herself on the very claims filled by the applicants here in, hence going to LC 1 courts was the applicant's choice. - l) The said application Misc. Cause No. 293 of 2022 was founded on falsehoods involving the claims filed for rental arrears yet the suit property had already been disposed of by the second applicant with her sons to which these falsehoods were brought to the attention of the trial

1st July 2025

Page **4** of **11**

magistrate by way of preliminary point of law and same was dismissed hence with costs to the respondent

- m) The applicants had a duty to file a case in a competent court as per the laws of the land and her sole duty as the respondent in the circumstances was to defend herself and she reneged on the said duty to file a reply in MISC cause no. 293 of 2022 that applicants could not be seeking for these remedies. - n) The applicant and her advocates had the sole mandate to determine which court to file the suit and indeed they did not raise any point of law in respect to the jurisdiction of court or seeking reallocation or lodging an appeal and it is now 2 years that the applicants are filling this application putting me at the risk of raising colossal sums of money in advocates and court filing fees. - o) The applicants are not entitled to the remedies they are seeking as they have not brought this application with undue delay just over 2 years which is way too long yet the law requires to bring such an application within reasonable time. - p) It is fair, just and equitable that this application be dismissed with costs.

#### REPRESENTATION

The applicants were represented by Lutaakome and Co. Advocates while the Respondent was represented by Nabukenya, Mulalira and Co Advocates

#### ISSUE FOR DETERMINATION

1st July 2025

Whether this application has grounds for revision.

#### DETERMINATION

I have read the submissions of both Counsel for the Applicants and Respondent together with the authorities submitted by all Counsel. I have also had the opportunity of reading the Notice of Motion, the supporting affidavits and the affidavit in reply.

The parties cited extensive authorities which I agree with and find no reason to depart from. The said authorities shall be applied herein in the same manner with perhaps contrasting scenarios and interpretations.

In the notice of motion and supporting affidavit the applicant is seeking revision of the ruling on a variety of grounds. I will zero down on the most important one. It is my view that the other grounds raised are grounds for trial and not for this court.

The applicant contends that the ruling ought to be revised for having been entered by a magistrate who lacked pecuniary jurisdiction. That the Magistrate Grade One exercised his jurisdiction irregularly and illegally.

In the affidavit in reply opposing the application, the respondent contends that the Magistrate Grade One properly exercised his jurisdiction. That it is the applicant that filed the Matter in both St. Benedict L. C 1 Court and Misc. Cause No. 293 of 2022 in the Chief Magistrate's Court of Makindye at Makindye. That as such the applicant is wasting courts time and abusing court process. I note with concern the Applicant hearing has taken to abusing court process. The Applicant made a complaint to the LC1 court which was dismissed on the basis of lack of right. The Applicant herein

1st July 2025 proceeded to file Misc. Cause No. 293 of 2022 in the Grade 1 Court in Makindye applying for;

- a) A special certificate be granted to the Applicant to levy distress against the. Respondent in respect of residential premises located at Nabisalu Zone Makindye Division. - b) Distress for rent doth issue against the Respondents for recovery of sum of Ugshs 24,000,000 (Twenty Four Million Uganda Shillings)

That after losing he made this application for the revision on the basis of want of pecuniary Jurisdiction. That the ruling of his worship Igga Adiru should be set aside because it is unenforceable and a nullity for having been entered by a court that lacked pecuniary jurisdiction to do so.

Section 83 of the *Civil Procedure Act*, *Cap 71* empowers this court to revise decisions of magistrates' courts where the magistrate's 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. It entails a re-examination or careful review, for correction or improvement, of a decision of a magistrate's court, after satisfying oneself as to the correctness, legality or propriety of any finding, order or any other decision and the regularity of any proceedings of a magistrate's court. It is a wide power exercisable in any proceedings in which it appears that an error material to the merits of the case or involving a miscarriage of justice occurred, but after the parties have first been given the opportunity of being heard and only if from lapse of time or other

1st July 2025

cause, the exercise of that power would not involve serious hardship to any person. Counsel for the applicant in their notice of motion cited s 17 (2) of The Judicature Act, Cap 13 empowers the High Court in exercise of its general powers of supervision over magistrates courts to invoke its inherent powers to prevent abuse of the process of the court.

The contention in this application is that the Magistrate Grade One Court at Koboko exercised a jurisdiction not vested in it in law or acted in the exercise of its jurisdiction illegally or with material irregularity or injustice when it entertained a matter of UGX 24,000,000 (Uganda shillings twenty-four million) which is beyond its pecuniary limit of shs. 20,000,000/=( Uganda shillings twenty million) set by Section 207(1) (b) of *The Magistrates Courts Act* (as amended by Act No.7 of 2007), which provid/es for the pecuniary jurisdiction of a Magistrate Grade One Court as follows;

- *(1) Subject to this section and any other written law, the jurisdiction of magistrates presiding over magistrates courts for the trial and determination of causes and matters of a civil nature shall be as follows—* - *(b) a magistrate grade I shall have jurisdiction where the value of the subject matter does not exceed twenty million shillings.*

Section 4 of *The Civil Procedure Act,* Cap 71, provides as follows;

*Pecuniary jurisdiction.*

1st July 2025

*Except insofar as is otherwise expressly provided, nothing in this Act shall operate to give any court jurisdiction over suits the amount or value of the subject matter of which exceeds the pecuniary limits, if any, of its ordinary jurisdiction.*

*It is my finding that the Grade One Magistrate's Court exercised* jurisdiction not vested in the court by law

## *In* Koboko District Local Government v Okujjo (Miscellaneous Civil Application No 0001 of 2016) 2016 UGHCCD 61 it was held that;-

*"One of the "policies of court" is the question of jurisdiction that it is at once fundamental and over-arching as far as any judicial proceeding is concerned. Jurisdiction is the first test in the legal authority of a court and its absence disqualifies the court from exercising any of its powers.* Jurisdiction means and includes any authority conferred by the law upon the court to decide or adjudicate any dispute between the parties or pass judgment or order. A court cannot entertain a cause which it has no jurisdiction to adjudicate upon".

With regard to pecuniary jurisdiction, *section* 207 (4) of *The Magistrates Courts Act*, Cap 16 provides that;

(4) In any suit where it is impossible to estimate the subject matter at a money value in which, by reason of any finding or order of the court, a declaration of ownership of any money or property is made, no decree shall be issued for an amount on the claim

1st July 2025

exceeding the pecuniary limits of the ordinary jurisdiction of the court passing the decree.

Jurisdiction must exist at the time of filing suit or latest at the commencement of hearing. It cannot be conferred at the time of delivery of judgment for Jurisdiction does not operate retroactively. Whereas the general pecuniary jurisdiction of a Magistrate Grade One court is limited to Ugshs 20,000,000/= ( Uganda shillings twenty million ) set by section 207(1) (b) of *The Magistrates Courts Act* (as amended by Act No.7 of 2007), by virtue of s 207 (2), the court has unlimited jurisdiction with regard to disputes relating to a cause or matter of a civil nature governed only by civil customary law. This matter was a claim for Ugshs 24,000,000/= ( Uganda shillings twenty four million )

The Grade One Magistrate's Court did not have unlimited jurisdiction but rather its pecuniary jurisdiction was limited to shs 20,000,000/= ( Uganda shillings twenty million ) as stipulated by s 207(1) (b) of *The Magistrates Courts Act*.

In *Mubiru Kaloli and 21 others v Kayiwa Edmond and 5 others [1979] HCB 212* (CA), the Court of Appeal of Uganda held that,

An order made without jurisdiction is a nullity. In the instant case, since the order of the trial magistrate awarding general damages in the sum of Ushs 2,400,000/= to the plaintiff was made without appropriate jurisdiction. It was a nullity ab-initio.

In the instant application, the only aspect of the respondent's claim that was not subject to the limit of the pecuniary jurisdiction of the court was the claim for costs. It is a settled principle of law is that costs are not considered in determining the

1st July 2025

Page **10** of **11**

pecuniary jurisdiction of a court (see *Abbey Semakula v Eldad Rubarenzye [1996] 2 KALR 22*). However, clause 7 of the consent judgment is to the effect that each party was to bear its own costs.

In finality, this revision succeeds with the following orders;-

- 1. The ruling and orders in Misc. Cause No. 293 of 2022 are a nullity and are therefore hereby set aside. - 2. Misc. Cause No. 293 of 2022 be heard de novo by a chief magistrate - 3. Since Misc. Cause No. 293 of 2022 was filed by the applicant, I deny her costs of this application. Therefore, each party is to bear its costs of these proceedings.

I so order

…………………………………………………

SIMON PETER M. KINOBE JUDGE

DATE: 1st July 2025