Wakilii

Mrs. Amina Ismail V Tom Ssejemba (Civil Appeal No. DR. MFP 2 1990)

High Court · [1991] UGHC 9 · 1991 Appeal Dismissed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Civil appeal from Magistrate Grade I Court decision on preliminary objections to the competency of the appeal
Decision
Appeal dismissed as the trial court lacked pecuniary jurisdiction; matter to be refiled in appropriate court

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

Held that while the decree was properly signed by the successor Magistrate under Order 18 Rule 7(3) of the Civil Procedure Rules, the Magistrate Grade I Court lacked pecuniary jurisdiction to hear the original suit. Following the Currency Reform Statute 2/87, the pecuniary jurisdiction of a Magistrate Grade I was reduced from Shs. 1,000,000/= to Shs. 10,000/= by striking off two zeros. The claim of Shs. 213,400/= exceeded this limit. The trial was therefore a nullity. Appeal struck out with costs; case to be filed before a court with competent jurisdiction.

Outcome

Appeal dismissed as the trial court lacked pecuniary jurisdiction; matter to be refiled in appropriate court

Facts

The appellant sued the respondent in Magistrate Grade I Court Kasese for Shs. 213,400/= arising from 58 bags of maize supplied for grinding and the value of gunny bags. The plaint was filed on 13 February 1990. The trial Magistrate, Mr. Tugume, heard the case and delivered judgment on 17 May 1990 in favour of the plaintiff. Tugume died in September 1990. A decree was extracted and signed by his successor, Mr. Ntegye. The appellant appealed to the High Court. The respondent raised preliminary objections: first, that the decree was defectively signed by a Magistrate who did not hear the case; second, that the trial court lacked pecuniary jurisdiction because the Currency Reform Statute 2/87 reduced the Magistrate Grade I's jurisdiction from Shs. 1,000,000/= to Shs. 10,000/= by striking off two zeros, and the claim of Shs. 213,400/= exceeded this limit.

Issues

  1. Whether the memorandum of appeal was properly accompanied by a decree signed by a Magistrate with authority to do so under Order 18 Rule 7(3) of the Civil Procedure Rules.
  2. Whether the Magistrate Grade I Court had pecuniary jurisdiction to entertain a claim of Shs. 213,400/= at the time the plaint was filed on 13 February 1990, in light of the Currency Reform Statute 2/87.

Orders

  • Preliminary objections to the appeal upheld with costs.
  • Trial before the Magistrate Grade I Court Kasese declared a nullity.
  • Case to be filed before a court with competent jurisdiction to handle the same.

Rules and key headnotes

Civil Procedure — Appeals — Decree Requirements — Signing by Successor Judge or Magistrate
Under Order 18 Rule 7(3) of the Civil Procedure Rules, a decree in a Magistrate's court shall be drawn up and signed by the judge who pronounced it or by his successor. Where the trial Magistrate has died before signing the decree, the successor Magistrate has the requisite jurisdiction to sign the decree, and such a decree is valid and properly extracted.
Civil Procedure — Jurisdiction — Pecuniary Jurisdiction of Magistrate Courts — Effect of Currency Reform
The Currency Reform Statute 2/87 fundamentally altered Uganda's currency such that all legislation prior to the Statute where money was involved required two zeros to be knocked off. Following the Currency Reform, the pecuniary jurisdiction of a Magistrate Grade I, which had been increased to Shs. 1,000,000/= by the Magistrates Courts Amendment Act 1985, was reduced to Shs. 10,000/= by striking off two zeros. A Magistrate Grade I therefore had no jurisdiction to entertain a suit filed after the Currency Reform whose subject matter exceeded Shs. 10,000/=.
Civil Procedure — Jurisdiction — Nullity — Proceedings Before Court Without Jurisdiction
Where a Magistrate's court lacks pecuniary jurisdiction to entertain a claim, the entire trial and any decree extracted from it are a nullity. Everything done prior to and after the decree is void, and an appeal from such a decree must be struck out. The proper remedy is for the case to be filed before a court with competent jurisdiction.

Legislation cited (9)

Cases cited (6)

  • Alexander Marrison v Ms Versi and Another (1953) 20 EACA 26
  • Mukasa v Ocholi [1968] EA 89
  • Kiwege and Nuda Sisal Estate Ltd v Manathwani (1952) EACA 160
  • Sarah Kivumbi v Betty S. Matovu (High Court Civil Appeal MM 2 of 1989)
  • Nasanga & Nanyonga's case
  • Kikaba k Kidyedye v Gedion Kibanda (High Court Civil Appeal No. 9 of 1988)

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Mrs. Amina Ismail V Tom Ssejemba (Civil Appeal No. DR. MFP 2_1990) [1991] UGHC 9 (23 May 1991)
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.