Wakilii

Abarihamwe Cooperative Society Limited and Others v Kishaija Tadeo Katutsi and Others (Civil Appeal No. 70 of 2024)

High Court · [2025] UGHCCD 241 · 2025 Appeal Dismissed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Appeal from decision of the Board of Directors of the Uganda Cooperative Alliance Ltd in UCA Board Arbitration Appeal No. 1 of 2023
Decision
Appeal dismissed for lack of jurisdiction

Observed later treatment

No later-treatment classification is recorded for this judgment.

Citator coverage is limited to judgments in the Wakilii corpus and source-matched treatment records. Absence of a signal is not an assertion that the case remains good law.

AI-generated summary. This summary was generated by AI from the full text of the judgment. It may contain errors or omissions—always read the source judgment before relying on it.

Holding

The High Court lacks appellate jurisdiction over decisions of the Board of Directors of the Uganda Cooperative Alliance Ltd concerning disputes involving members of a registered cooperative society. Section 1 of the Cooperative Societies Act defines the appropriate court for registered societies as one presided over by a Chief Magistrate or Magistrate Grade I. The High Court has jurisdiction only for unions of two or more registered societies. Jurisdiction is statutory and cannot be assumed. The appeal was dismissed with costs.

Outcome

Appeal dismissed for lack of jurisdiction

Facts

The appellants appealed from a decision of the Board of Directors of the Uganda Cooperative Alliance Ltd dated 31 May 2024 in UCA Board Arbitration Appeal No. 1 of 2023. The underlying dispute arose from an arbitration claim filed by the respondents under the Cooperative Societies Act challenging the legitimacy of the appellants' leadership and asserting rights as representatives of deceased members. The arbitrator ruled in favour of the respondents on 9 August 2023. The appellants appealed to the UCA Board, which upheld the arbitrator's decision. The appellants then brought this appeal to the High Court seeking declarations that the respondents' claims were barred by limitation and that the first respondent lacked standing. The respondents raised a preliminary objection that the High Court lacked appellate jurisdiction over decisions of the UCA Board.

Issues

  1. Whether the High Court has jurisdiction to handle an appeal from a decision of the Board of Directors of the Uganda Cooperative Alliance Ltd.
  2. What remedies are available to the parties.

Orders

  • The High Court does not have jurisdiction to handle this appeal.
  • The appeal is dismissed.
  • Costs awarded to the respondents.

Rules and key headnotes

Jurisdiction — Appellate Jurisdiction — Statutory Definition
Appellate jurisdiction is a creature of statute and must be expressly conferred by law. A court cannot assume jurisdiction in the absence of a statutory provision conferring such jurisdiction upon it.
Cooperative Societies — Dispute Resolution — Appellate Forum
Under the Cooperative Societies Act Cap 107, appeals from decisions of the Board of Directors of the Uganda Cooperative Alliance Ltd concerning disputes involving members of a registered cooperative society lie with the Magistrate's Court presided over by a Chief Magistrate or Magistrate Grade I, not the High Court. The High Court has jurisdiction only for unions of two or more registered societies.
Interpretation of 'Court' — Cooperative Societies Act
Section 1 of the Cooperative Societies Act Cap 107 defines 'court' in relation to a registered society to mean a court presided over by a Chief Magistrate or Magistrate Grade I, and in relation to a union of two or more registered societies to mean the High Court. This definition is determinative of appellate jurisdiction under the Act.
Jurisdiction — Inherent Jurisdiction — Limits
While the High Court has inherent unlimited jurisdiction under Article 139(1) of the Constitution, this inherent jurisdiction must be exercised judiciously and cannot be invoked to override clear statutory provisions conferring jurisdiction on another court. The court can only exercise inherent jurisdiction in a matter that is properly before it.
Jurisdiction — Effect of Lack of Jurisdiction
Jurisdiction of a court is not a matter of inference but of law and must be prescribed by statute. A decision of a court without jurisdiction is a nullity. Lack of jurisdiction goes beyond any error, omission or irregularity and cannot be regarded as a mere technicality.
Procedural Rules — Permissive vs Mandatory Language
Where a statute uses the word 'may' in conferring power to make procedural rules, the provision is permissive and not mandatory. The absence of such rules does not render the statutory remedy unavailable where existing procedural rules of the designated court are sufficient to govern the proceedings.

Legislation cited (8)

Cases cited (7)

  • Kasozi Lawrence v Uganda (SCCA No. 13 of 2009)
  • Henry Kifamunte v Uganda (1999) 2 EA 127
  • Umar Asuman v Olila Moses (HCCR No. 1 of 2006)
  • [2017] UGHCCD 28
  • [2023] UGHCCD 207
  • Zubeda Mohamed and Another v Wallia and Another (Supreme Court Civil Reference No. 7 of 2016)
  • Desai v Warsama (1967) EA 351

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

The original judgment as reported. Read the original PDF before relying on any passage.

Abarihamwe Cooperative Society Limited and Others v Kishaija Tadeo Katutsi and Others (Civil Appeal No. 70 of 2024) [2025] UGHCCD 241 (16 October 2025)
Source: this page presents Wakilii’s issue analysis and metadata for a publicly reported Ugandan judgment. Any AI-generated summary is marked as such. Judgment text is sourced from the Uganda Legal Information Institute (ulii.org). Wakilii is not affiliated with ULII.