Wakilii

Chelimo v Chemayi (Revision Cause No. 4 of 2020)

High Court · [2021] UGHCCD 184 · 2021 Application Dismissed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Application for revisional order under Section 83 CPA challenging Magistrate's determination of land acreage using GPS at locus in quo
Decision
Revision application dismissed; trial Magistrate's determination of 73.2 acres upheld

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 dismissed the revision application, holding that a trial Magistrate is entitled to use GPS at locus in quo to ascertain land acreage where competence in its use is presumed and not disproven. GPS is no longer an exclusive tool of surveyors and its proper use by a judicial officer does not constitute material irregularity. The applicant's remedy lay in appeal, not revision, as the complaint concerned the correctness of the decision rather than improper exercise of jurisdiction.

Outcome

Revision application dismissed; trial Magistrate's determination of 73.2 acres upheld

Facts

In September 2015, the Applicant filed suit in Bukwo Magistrate's Court claiming vacant possession of over 80 acres of land. During locus in quo, the trial Magistrate used a GPS to determine the suit land comprised 73.2 acres and decreed this acreage to the plaintiff. During execution, the bailiff initially handed over the entire suit land in excess of the decreed acreage. Following the Respondent's complaint, a surveyor was engaged and demarcated the 73.2 acres as decreed. The Applicant then sought revision, arguing the trial Magistrate erred by using GPS instead of employing a professional surveyor, and claiming a subsequent survey showed the land measured 105.7 acres.

Issues

  1. Whether the trial Magistrate acted illegally or with material irregularity by using a GPS to determine land acreage at locus in quo without employing a professional surveyor.
  2. Whether the High Court should exercise its revisional jurisdiction under Section 83 CPA to alter the acreage determination.

Orders

  • Application dismissed.
  • Costs awarded to the Respondent.

Rules and key headnotes

Civil Procedure — Revision — Scope of Revisional Jurisdiction — Section 83 CPA
The High Court's revisional jurisdiction under Section 83 CPA applies strictly to cases where a subordinate court exercised jurisdiction not vested in it, failed to exercise jurisdiction vested in it, or acted illegally or with material irregularity in the exercise of its jurisdiction. Any injustice or irregularity other than in the exercise of jurisdiction must be remedied by appeal rather than revision.
Civil Procedure — Locus in Quo — Use of GPS by Judicial Officer
A trial Magistrate is entitled to use GPS at locus in quo as one of the means available to ascertain land acreage. Where it has not been shown by evidence that the judicial officer lacked competence and skills to use GPS, the ascertainment of acreage by use of GPS is acceptable. GPS is no longer an exclusive tool of surveyors and can be used by judicial officers in determining land boundaries and measurements.
Land & Property — Land Surveying — Judicial Determination of Acreage
A judicial officer's determination of land acreage using GPS at locus in quo cannot be regarded as an error merely because a subsequent unilateral survey commissioned by a party produces a different measurement. The official survey report commissioned by court to implement the decree is the authoritative determination.

Legislation cited (4)

Cases cited (1)

  • Tayebwa v Bangonzya and Another [1992-1993] HCB 143

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Chelimo v Chemayi (Revision Cause No. 4 of 2020) [2021] UGHCCD 184 (12 October 2021)
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.