[2025] UGHC 140

#### **THE REPUBLICOF UGANDA**

#### **IN THE HIGH COURT OF UGANDA AT GULU**

#### **CIVIL APPEAL NO. 217 OF 2022**

**(Arising from High Court Misc. Application No. 57 of 2020)**

**(Arising from Gulu Chief Magistrates Court Civil Suit No. 67 of 2015)**

#### **OCIRA DENIS**

**(Suing on behalf of the estate of the late Okello Yeka) ================APPELLANT**

#### **VERSUS**

**OKWERA ALEX Alias MUKUNGU========================== RESPONDENT**

#### **BEFORE HON. JUSTICE PHILLIP ODOKI**

## **JUDGEMENT**

#### **Introduction:**

[1] This appeal arises from the decision of the Deputy Registrar of this Court (His Worship Ntalo Nasulu Hussein) dated 18th August 2022 wherein he dismissed High Court Misc. Application No. 57 of 2020 with costs to the Appellant. The Appellant, being dissatisfied with the judgement, appealed to this Court. He prayed that the appeal be allowed; the decision of the Deputy Registrar be set aside; and the costs of this appeal be provided for.

#### **Background:**

[2] The Appellant instituted Civil Suit No 67 of 2015 against the Respondents in the Chief Magistrates Court of Gulu in which he sought for, a declaration that he is the owner of land situate at Oruba Layibi Sub – ward, Techo Parish, Layibi Division, Gulu Municipality (hereinafter referred to as 'the suit land'); a declaration that the purchase of the suit land by the Respondent is illegal; an order to evict the Respondent from the suit land; a permanent injunction to restrain the Respondent, his agents and servants from occupying, using and/or enjoying the suit land; general damages and costs of the suit.

[3] At the commencement of the hearing of Civil Suit No 67 of 2015, Counsel for the Appellant raised 3 points of law. First, that the Respondent had no audience before the court having filed his Written Statement of Defence out of time. Secondly, that the Written Statement of Defense which was filed constitutes admissions by the Respondent. Counsel prayed that judgment be entered on admission. Thirdly, that an agreement which was attached to the Written Statement of Defense as Annexure "A" indicates that the suit land was purchased by a one Okello Yekka and not Theresa Okello from whom the Respondent alleges that he bought the suit land. Counsel submitted that the Respondent has no claim of right over the suit land and is therefore a stranger to the proceedings.

[4] On the 21st February 2020 Her Worship Christine Turibamwe, Magistrate Grade 1, overruled the points of law and directed that the suit should proceed for hearing. On the same day, the Appellant applied before the Magistrate Grade 1 for leave to appeal against the decision and the order overruling the points of law raised. The application was rejected by the trial Magistrate. The Appellant then applied to this Court, vide High Court Misc. Application No. 57 of 2020 for leave to appeal to this Court against the decision of the Magistrate Grade 1 overruling the points of law. On the 18th August 2022 the Deputy Registrar of this Court dismissed High Court Misc. Application No. 57 of 2020 with costs to the Respondent. The Appellant, being dissatisfied with the judgement, appealed to this Court.

# **Grounds of appeal:**

[5] The following grounds of appeal were formulated by the Appellant.

- 1. The Learned Registrar erred in law and in fact when he entertained the application as an application for leave to appeal out of time whereas it was an application for leave to appeal. - 2. The Learned Registrar erred in law and in fact when he held that the application was time barred. - 3. The Learned Registrar erred in law and in fact when he entertained the application without compliance with court directives regarding submissions. - 4. The Learned Registrar erred in law and in fact when he entertained a point of law in his judgment when the same had not been raised in court or submitted upon. - 5. The Learned Registrar erred in law and in fact when he held that the Appellant was guilty of dilatory conduct. - 6. The Learned Registrar erred in law and in fact when he held that the Appellant's advocate should be penalized to pay UGX 1,500,000 to the Respondent. - 7. The Learned Registrar erred in law and in fact when he entertained the application without jurisdiction to do so.

#### **Legal representation and submissions:**

[6] At the hearing, the Appellant was represented by Mr. Mukuve Mugaga of M/s Mukuve & Co. Advocates. The Respondent was represented by Mr. Daglous Odyek and Ms. Isabella Piloya of M/s Kunihira & Co. Advocates. Both Counsel made oral submissions in court in addition to the written submissions which were filed by Counsel for the Appellant. I have given the submission of counsel the due consideration in this matter.

## **Analysis and determination of the Court:**

[7] I consider it prudent to first handle ground 7 of the appeal which deals with the issue whether the Deputy Registrar had the requisite jurisdiction to hear and determine High Court Misc. Application No. 57 of 2020.

[8] Counsel for the Appellant argued that the Deputy Registrar did not have the jurisdiction to hear and determine the application for leave to appeal to the High Court which is a preserve of the trial Judge. Counsel argued that Order 50 of the Civil Procedure Rules restricts the powers of Registrars to handling interlocutory matters. Counsel further argued that under Order 44 of the Civil Procedure Act, the jurisdiction to hear and determine an application for leave to appeal to the High Court lies with the judge.

[9] Counsel for the Respondent on the other hand submitted that the Deputy Registrar had the jurisdiction to hear and determine the matter. In support of their submissions, counsel relied on the case of *Kamanda Bukenya versus Edith Nakandi and another HCMA No. 0775 of 2017 on* the powers of Registrars of Courts.

[10] The term jurisdiction refers to the authority which a court of law has to hear and decide a case that has been brought before it. The limit of the authority is imposed by the law under which the court is constituted and cannot be prescribed by inference. A court of law cannot arrogate itself jurisdiction beyond what is provided for under the law. Once the court finds that it has no jurisdiction to decide a case, it cannot take any further step in the case. This is because a decision of a court without jurisdiction is a nullity. See the case of *Desai versus Warsama [1967] 1 EA 351*; *Uganda Railway Corporation versus Ekwaru D. O and 5104 other SCCA*

# *No. 07 of 2019*; *Owners of Motor Vessel Lillian v. Caltex Oil Kenya Limited [1989] KLR 1;* and *Pulkeria Nakaggwa v. Dominiko Kiggundu [1978] HCB 310.*

[11] Under Order 50 of the Civil Procedure rules, a registrar of the Court has the power and jurisdiction to, do any act or thing which under the Civil Procedure Act and the Civil Procedure Rules is provided that it can be done by such officers as the court may appoint (rule1); enter judgment in uncontested cases and cases in which the parties consent to judgment being entered in agreed terms (rule 2); handle all formal and all interlocutory matters (rule 3); make formal orders for attachment and sale of property and for the issue of notices to show cause on applications for arrest and imprisonment in execution of a decree of the High Court (rule 4); carry out or do any act, undertaking, inspection, proceeding or thing which is provided by or under any Act of Parliament or law for the time being in force to be carried out to the satisfaction of or in accordance with the directions of a judge or the High Court or a commissioner appointed to examine and adjust accounts, as the judge or the High Court, as the case may be, shall generally or specially direct (rule 5). In the performance of the powers or jurisdiction in rules 1-5, a registrar is deemed to be a civil court (rule 6). The power and jurisdiction of the registrar to handle all formal steps preliminary to the trial and all interlocutory applications which was originally provided for in Order 50 rule 3 is now exercised by the registrar under Order 11A rule 7 of the Civil Procedure (Amendment)Rules, 2019 under summons for directions.

[12] In addition, under Practice Direction No. 1 of 2002, which was made by the Chief Justice to ensure expeditious disposal of cases, and in my view has never been repealed, the powers of Registrars includes, but not limited to, entertaining application for representative suits under Order 1 rule 8; notice to third parties under Order 1 rule 14; default of appearance by third party under Order 1 rule 16; extension of time to effect service under Order 5 rule 1; dismissal of a suit for failure to serve under Order 5 rule 1; applications for substituted service under Order 5 rule 19 (now rule 18); applications for service outside jurisdiction under Order 5 rule 23 (rule 26); dismissal of a suit for failure to pay fees under Order 9 rule 13(now rule 16); dismissal of a suit where summons is unserved and the plaintiff fails to for a year to apply for fresh summons under Order 9 rule 16 (now rule19); judgment on admission under Order 11 rule 6 (now Order 13 rule 6); procedure where witness fails to comply with summons under order 14 rule 10(now Order 16 rule 10); if witness appears attachment may be withdrawn under Order 14 rule 11 (now Order 16 rule 11); procedure if witness fails to appear under Order14 rule 12 (now Order 16 rule 12); mode of attachment under Order 14 rule 13 (now Order 16 rule 13); procedure where no application is made to restore suit adjourned generally under Order 15 rule 2 (now Order 17 rule 2); dismissal of suit for want of prosecution under Order 15 rule 5 (now Order 17 rule 5); suit may be dismissed if no steps taken for 2 years under Order 15 rule 6 (this provision has since been deleted by the Civil Procedure (Amendment)Rules, 2019); attachment of debts under Order 20 (now order 23); withdrawal and adjustments of suits under Order 22 (now Order 25); security for costs under Order 23 (now Order 26); suits by paupers under Order 30 (now Order 33); arrest and attachment before judgment under Order 36 (now Order 40); and notice to parties under Order 48 rule 2 (now Order 52 rule 2)

# [13] In *Florence Dawaru versus Agumale Albino and another HCCA No. 0096 of 2016* Mubiru J. held that a Registrar has primary auxiliary jurisdiction to deal only with those matters expressly prescribed by Order 50 of the Civil Procedure Rules and exercise powers ancillary or incidental thereto. Their power is neither original, nor appellate or revisional jurisdiction as that exercised by the Judge. The incidental powers are those which are directly and immediately appropriate to the execution of the powers expressly granted and which exist only to enable the

Registrar to carry out the purpose for which the auxiliary jurisdiction was conferred. They can only grant auxiliary reliefs of a more routine and formal nature, pending the determination of the substantive reliefs by the Judge. The principle is that the nature and extent of incidental / ancillary power will depend upon the jurisdiction that is exercised. The incidental power can never be one which is in the form of "prelude" to the main but it has to be of the nature of "sequel" of the main power.

[14] In the instant case, the registrar entertained High Court Misc. Application No. 57 of 2020 which was for leave to appeal to the High Court against the decision of the trial Magistrate overruling the points of law. The application was filed pursuant to Order 44 rule1 (1), (2), (3) and (4) of the Civil Procedure Rules. Under rule 2 thereof, provides that:

*"An appeal under these Rules shall not lie from any other order except with leave of the court making the order or of the court to which an appeal would lie if leave were given."* Underlined for emphasis.

[15] The application for leave by the High Court to enable the Appellant to appeal against the decision of the trial Magistrate is not one of the matters where the Registrar of the Court has the jurisdiction to entertain under the Civil Procedure Rules and the Practice Direction. The application is not an interlocutory application pending the determination of any main application. It is a substantive application which seeks substantive reliefs which can only be granted by the Judge. Accordingly, I find that the Deputy Registrar of this Court did not have the requisite jurisdiction to hear and determine High Court Misc. Application No. 57 of 2020. He entertained the application without jurisdiction to do so. Ground 7 of the appeal therefore succeeds.

[16] Having found that the Deputy Registrar did not the jurisdiction to entertain the application, I consider it inconsequential to determine the other grounds of appeal. This appeal therefore succeeds, the decision of the Deputy Registrar is accordingly set aside. Each party shall bear their own costs of the appeal given that the mistake was of the Deputy Registrar to entertain an application where he did not have jurisdiction. High Court Misc. Application No. 57 of 2020 shall be cause listed for hearing before the judge.

I so order.

Dated and delivered by email this 27th day of March, 2025

Phillip Odoki **Judge.**