Kirumira v Maulana (Civil Revision 6 of 2023)
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 allowed the revision application, holding that the Chief Magistrate's Court lacked jurisdiction to entertain a claim arising from a contract for services, as such contracts are expressly excluded from the Small Claims Procedure Rules. The court further held that it was irregular for the magistrate to order the applicant to pay the respondent's expenses contrary to Rule 29 which provides that each party shall bear their own expenses. The judgment and orders against the applicant were set aside.
Outcome
Judgment and orders of the Chief Magistrate's Court set aside; small claim dismissed as to the applicant
Facts
The respondent claimed breach of contract for catering services allegedly rendered to the applicant and KPI Askaris (a security company). The Chief Magistrate's Court found in favour of the respondent and ordered the applicant and KPI Askaris to pay UGX 7,185,000. The applicant had worked as property manager of Ham Shopping Grounds Block S. The property owner contracted Kampala Parking Industry Security Services Limited to guard the premises. The applicant maintained she never executed any contract with the respondent for food supply and was not aware of any arrangement between the respondent and the security company. Documents presented as proof of services were receipts from New Orange Restaurant located in Mubende. The respondent's telephone number matched one of the numbers on the restaurant receipts.
Issues
- Whether the trial magistrate had the jurisdiction to entertain the small claim
- Whether the learned trial magistrate exercised her jurisdiction illegally and irregularly when she ordered the Applicant to meet the expenses of the Respondent
- What remedies are available to the parties?
Orders
- The Learned Trial Magistrate did not have the jurisdiction to entertain the Respondent's Claim.
- The Learned Trial Magistrate acted irregularly when she found that the Applicant should pay the Respondent's expenses.
- The Judgment and Orders of the Learned Trial Magistrate against the Applicant are hereby set aside.
- The Applicant is awarded costs of the Application.
- Application allowed.
Rules and key headnotes
Legislation cited (5)
- Civil Procedure Act Cap 71 s.83
- Civil Procedure Act s.27(1)
- Judicature (Small Claims Procedure) Rules 2011 r.5(2)(g)
- Judicature (Small Claims Procedure) Rules 2011 r.29
- Civil Procedure Rules Order 9 rules 10 & 20
Cases cited (2)
- Serefaco Consultants Limited v Euro Consult BV & Another (Court of Appeal Civil Appeal No. 16 of 2007)
- Abdulrahman Elamin v Dhabi Group & 2 Others (Court of Appeal Civil Appeal No. 215 of 2013)
Full judgment
The original judgment as reported. Read the original PDF before relying on any passage.