Wakilii

Buuto v Waiswa (MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION N0. 95 OF 2018)

High Court · [2018] UGHCCD 116 · 2018 Application Granted — Suit Struck Out AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Application to transfer civil suit from Chief Magistrate's Court to High Court on grounds of pecuniary jurisdiction
Decision
Civil Suit No. 20/2017 struck out as illegal for want of jurisdiction; parties directed to proceed with existing High Court suit

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 held that where the subject matter of a suit is valued at UGX 240,000,000, it exceeds the pecuniary jurisdiction of a Grade I Magistrate (UGX 20,000,000 under Magistrates Court Act section 207(1)(b)). Proceedings before a court without jurisdiction are illegal, null and void. A suit illegally instituted in a court without jurisdiction cannot be transferred to the High Court under Civil Procedure Act section 18. The only remedy is to strike out the suit as illegal.

Outcome

Civil Suit No. 20/2017 struck out as illegal for want of jurisdiction; parties directed to proceed with existing High Court suit

Facts

The respondent filed Civil Suit No. 20/2017 in the Chief Magistrate's Court in Iganga claiming trespass to land in Nabidhonga, Iganga Municipality, seeking eviction, demolition, permanent injunction, damages and costs. The suit was before a Grade I Magistrate and some evidence had been heard. During the proceedings, the applicant introduced a land title in evidence. The applicant then applied to the High Court to transfer the suit, stating that the subject matter had been valued by the Chief Government Valuer at UGX 240,000,000 and that he intended to seek damages of UGX 120,000,000, amounts beyond the pecuniary jurisdiction of the trial magistrate. The respondent opposed the transfer, arguing the suit was for trespass and that he had separately filed Civil Suit No. 48/2008 in the High Court seeking cancellation of the applicant's title. A valuation report dated 15 March 2018 confirmed the property value at UGX 240,000,000.

Issues

  1. Whether Civil Suit No. 20/2017 pending before the Grade I Magistrate should be transferred to the High Court.
  2. Whether the Grade I Magistrate had pecuniary jurisdiction to hear the suit given the valuation of the subject matter at UGX 240,000,000.

Orders

  • Civil Suit No. 20/2017 before the Chief Magistrate in Iganga declared illegal, null and void.
  • Civil Suit No. 20/2017 struck out.
  • Parties to proceed with the subsisting suit before the High Court.
  • No order as to costs.

Rules and key headnotes

Civil Procedure — Jurisdiction — Pecuniary Jurisdiction of Magistrates Courts
Under section 207(1)(b) of the Magistrates Court Act, the pecuniary jurisdiction of a Grade I Magistrate is limited to suits where the subject matter does not exceed UGX 20,000,000.
Civil Procedure — Jurisdiction — Effect of Lack of Jurisdiction
A judgment of a court without jurisdiction is a nullity and proceedings before a court sitting without jurisdiction are illegal.
Civil Procedure — Transfer of Suits — Prerequisite of Legality
Under section 18 of the Civil Procedure Act, the High Court may transfer a suit from a subordinate court to itself, but such transfer is subject to the legality of the suit. Where the original suit was instituted in a court without jurisdiction, the suit is incompetent and cannot be transferred.
Civil Procedure — Jurisdiction — Remedy for Suit Before Court Without Jurisdiction
Where a suit is illegally before a subordinate court for want of jurisdiction, the High Court cannot transfer it but must declare the suit illegal, null and void, and strike it out.

Legislation cited (4)

Cases cited (2)

  • Mubiru v Kayiwa (1979) HCB 212
  • Kagenyi v Musiramo & Anor (1968) 1 EA 43

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Buuto v Waiswa (MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION N0. 95 OF 2018) [2018] UGHCCD 116 (20 June 2018)
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.