Wakilii

Lubega & Another v Uganda Broadcasting Corporation & Another (MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION NO. 589 OF 2019)

High Court · [2020] UGHCCD 73 · 2020 Application Dismissed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Application for review of interlocutory order transferring defamation suit from High Court to Chief Magistrate's Court
Decision
Application for review dismissed; transfer order to Chief Magistrate's Court 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 application for review, holding that no error apparent on the face of the record existed. Where applicants claim general damages without pleading or quantifying their value, only the specified special damages determine the value of the subject matter for jurisdictional purposes. Parties are bound by their pleadings, and unquantified general damages cannot form the basis for calculating subject matter value. The original transfer order to the Chief Magistrate's Court was correct given the pleaded special damages of UGX 7,193,100 fell within that court's pecuniary jurisdiction.

Outcome

Application for review dismissed; transfer order to Chief Magistrate's Court upheld

Facts

The applicants filed Civil Suit No. 155 of 2017 in the High Court seeking general damages for defamation, special damages of UGX 7,193,100 for transcription and translation costs, exemplary damages, a permanent injunction, interest, and costs. On 03/07/2019, respondents raised a preliminary objection arguing that since only special damages of UGX 7,193,100 were quantified, the suit should be transferred to the Chief Magistrate's Court under Section 18 of the Civil Procedure Act. The High Court upheld the objection and ordered transfer. The applicants' subsequent application for leave to appeal was dismissed. The applicants then brought this review application contending the transfer order was an error apparent on the face of the record because their claim was fundamentally for general damages arising from defamation, not merely the specified special damages.

Issues

  1. Whether there is an error or mistake apparent on the face of the record warranting review of the order transferring Civil Suit No. 155 of 2017 from the High Court to the Chief Magistrate's Court.
  2. Whether the value of the subject matter in a defamation suit claiming unquantified general damages falls within the pecuniary jurisdiction of the Magistrate's Court where only special damages of UGX 7,193,100 were pleaded.

Orders

  • Application dismissed.
  • Costs awarded to the Respondents.

Rules and key headnotes

Civil Procedure — Review of Judgment — Error Apparent on Face of Record — Definition and Test
For an error to ground a review application under Section 82 of the Civil Procedure Act and Order 46 of the Civil Procedure Rules, it must be an error apparent on the face of the record, meaning an evident error which does not require any extraneous matter to show its incorrectness. The error must be so manifest and clear that no court could permit such error to remain on the court record. A wrong application of the law or failure to apply appropriate law is not an error on the face of the record.
Civil Procedure — Jurisdiction — Pecuniary Jurisdiction — Determination of Value of Subject Matter
Where general damages are claimed but not quantified in the pleadings, they cannot be used as the basis for calculating the value of the subject matter for jurisdictional purposes. Only the ascertainable pecuniary value stated in the plaint determines which court has jurisdiction. Under Section 207 of the Magistrates Court Act, a Chief Magistrate has jurisdiction where the value of the subject matter does not exceed fifty million shillings.
Civil Procedure — Pleadings — Obligation to Plead Material Facts Including Jurisdictional Facts
A plaintiff has an obligation to plead all material facts including facts showing that the court has the necessary jurisdiction. The plaintiff must specify or give an indication of the amount of damages sought so as to bring the cause of action within the jurisdiction of a particular court. Parties are bound by their pleadings and cannot claim the value of the subject matter exceeds certain limits when such value was never stated in the pleadings.
Civil Procedure — Transfer of Cases — High Court Power to Transfer Cases to Subordinate Courts
The settled position of law is that cases shall be filed in the lowest court competent to handle them. The High Court has power under Section 18 of the Civil Procedure Act to transfer a case filed in it where the Court finds that the case can be conveniently tried in a subordinate court, particularly where the pecuniary value pleaded falls within the jurisdiction of the lower court.
Civil Procedure — Review versus Appeal — Distinction in Remedies
Where a party believes a court made a wrong decision given the material and information at its disposal, such party ought to have good grounds for appeal and not review. A point may be a good ground of appeal, but such good grounds can hardly form the basis for review under Order 46 of the Civil Procedure Rules. Review is not an alternative remedy to appeal where a party is dissatisfied with the decision on its merits.

Legislation cited (11)

Cases cited (18)

  • Re Nakivubo Chemists (U) Ltd [1979] HCB 12
  • Mohamed Alibhai v Bukenya Mukasa (Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 56 of 1996)
  • Adonia v Mutekanga [1970] EA 429
  • Edison Kanyabwera v Pastori Tumwebaze (Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 6 of 2004)
  • F.X. Mubuuke v UEB (High Court Miscellaneous Application No. 98 of 2005)
  • Hall Brothers SS Co. Ltd v Young (1939) 1 KB 754
  • Munyangwa Nsibirwa v Kamunyanguzi [1977] HCB 35
  • Mohamed Bin Shebai v Mohamed Bin Mohamed [1906-1908] 2 KLR 107
  • National Medical Stores v Penguins Ltd (High Court Civil Appeal No. 29 of 2010)
  • Kashibai v Sempagama [1967] EA 16
  • Macharia v Wanyioke [1972] EA 264
  • Busuti v Busoga District Administration (1971) 1 URL 179
  • Takiya Kaswahili & Another v Kajungu Denis (Court of Appeal Civil Appeal No. 85 of 2011)
  • Jani Properties Limited v Dar es Salaam City Council (1966) EA 281
  • Struggle (U) Ltd v Pan African Insurance Co. Ltd (1990) KALR 46
  • Daniel Oboth v the New Vision Printing and Publishing Corporation (Civil Appeal No. 12 of 1990)
  • Godfrey Sentongo v Stanbic Bank (U) Ltd (High Court Civil Case No. 59 of 2007)
  • Abasi Balinda v Frederick Kangwamu and Another (1963) EA 557

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Lubega & Another v Uganda Broadcasting Corporation & Another (MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION NO. 589 OF 2019) [2020] UGHCCD 73 (29 April 2020)
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.