Wakilii

De Souza v De Costa and Another (Civil Appeal No. 47 of 1933.)

East African Court of Appeal · [1934] EACA 15 · 1934 Appeal Allowed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Appeal from judgment of Resident Magistrate dismissing suit on promissory note for insufficient stamping
Decision
Matter remitted to Resident Magistrate, Eldoret, for hearing

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

A Court in the Colony has no jurisdiction to vary or disallow a collector's assessment of stamp duty under section 34 of the Stamp Ordinance. The collector's determination, once endorsed on an instrument, is final. A Court of limited jurisdiction cannot enlarge its jurisdiction even with the consent of the parties' advocates. Appeal allowed and case remitted for hearing.

Outcome

Matter remitted to Resident Magistrate, Eldoret, for hearing

Facts

The appellant sued on a promissory note. The note bore an endorsement by the Revenue Authority certifying that full stamp duty of Sh. 1 had been paid under section 34 of the Stamp Ordinance Cap. 57. The Resident Magistrate dismissed the suit with costs, holding that the promissory note was insufficiently stamped. The appellant appealed, arguing that the Resident Magistrate had no jurisdiction to decide whether the note was insufficiently stamped once the Revenue Authority had certified the stamp duty as paid, as such certification was final under section 34(3).

Issues

  1. Whether a Court in the Colony has jurisdiction to vary or disallow the assessment of stamp duty made by a collector under section 34 of the Stamp Ordinance Cap. 57.
  2. Whether a Court of limited jurisdiction can, with the consent of advocates, enlarge its own jurisdiction.

Orders

  • Appeal allowed with costs.
  • Case remitted to the Court of the Resident Magistrate, Eldoret, for hearing.

Rules and key headnotes

Stamp Duty — Finality of Collector's Assessment — Section 34 Stamp Ordinance
It is not open to any Court in the Colony to vary the order of a collector in an assessment made under section 34 of the Stamp Ordinance Cap. 57. Any instrument upon which an endorsement has been made under section 34 is deemed to be duly stamped or not chargeable with duty as the case may be, and the collector's determination is final in respect of that instrument.
Jurisdiction — Limits of Court Jurisdiction — Consent Cannot Enlarge Jurisdiction
A Court of limited jurisdiction cannot, even with the consent of the advocates concerned, enlarge that jurisdiction. When a limited Court takes upon itself to exercise a jurisdiction it does not possess, its decision amounts to nothing.
Stamp Duty — Effect of Section 34(3) Endorsement — Receivability in Evidence
Section 34(3) of the Stamp Ordinance provides that any instrument upon which an endorsement has been made under that section shall be deemed to be duly stamped or not chargeable with duty as the case may be, and if chargeable with duty shall be receivable in evidence or otherwise. This provision makes a determination by a collector which has been duly endorsed on an instrument final in respect of that instrument.

Legislation cited (8)

  • Stamp Ordinance Cap. 57 s.34
  • Stamp Ordinance Cap. 57 s.33
  • Stamp Ordinance Cap. 57 s.34(3)
  • Stamp Ordinance Cap. 57 s.34(4)
  • Stamp Ordinance Cap. 57 s.59
  • Stamp Ordinance Cap. 57 s.31(1)
  • Indian Stamp Act s.32
  • Indian Stamp Act s.32(3)

Cases cited (3)

  • Stamp Reference by the Board of Revenue, (40 All. 1918, 128)
  • Reference under Stamp Act 1902, (25 Mad. 752)
  • A. G. v. Hotham (3 Russ. 415)

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

De Souza v De Costa and Another (Civil Appeal No. 47 of 1933.) [1934] EACA 15 (1 January 1934)
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.