Wakilii

Mushabe and 2 Others v Kajuna and 2 Others (Revision Application No. 93 of 2005)

High Court · [2022] UGHC 37 · 2022 Revision Allowed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Revisional application from a Magistrate Grade One judgment in a civil suit for eviction and damages arising from a land dispute
Decision
Application allowed, judgment declared a nullity, respondents ordered to compensate applicants for illegally attached and sold cattle

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 held that a Magistrate Grade One lacked jurisdiction to hear a land dispute filed on 8 November 2002 and disposed of on 21 May 2003, during a period when Magistrates Courts had no jurisdiction over land matters under the Land Act 1998 as amended. Jurisdiction had been vested in District Land Tribunals, which had commenced operations by that time. The judgment, proceedings, and executions arising from the magistrate's decision were therefore a nullity. The respondents were jointly and severally liable to compensate the applicants for 422 cows illegally attached and sold pursuant to the void judgment.

Outcome

Application allowed, judgment declared a nullity, respondents ordered to compensate applicants for illegally attached and sold cattle

Facts

The applicants were defendants in Civil Suit No. 43 of 2002 filed by George Kajuna in the Chief Magistrate's Court of Mubende at Kiboga on 8 November 2002. The magistrate delivered judgment on 19 May 2003 ordering the applicants' eviction from leasehold land, general damages of UGX 1,000,000, mesne profits of UGX 1,000,000, and costs. During execution, court bailiffs (the 2nd and 3rd respondents) attached and sold 422 heads of the applicants' cattle, far exceeding the 60 heads authorized by initial warrants. Multiple warrants were issued between July 2003 and July 2004. The cattle were valued at UGX 180,000 each in the execution warrants. The applicants alleged the bailiffs misinformed the court, falsified records, and attached cattle without proper court authority. The applicants sought revision of the magistrate's judgment on the ground that the magistrate lacked jurisdiction to hear the land dispute.

Issues

  1. Whether the Grade 1 Magistrate had jurisdiction to entertain and determine a land dispute Civil Suit No. 43 of 2002 filed in court on 8th November 2002 and disposed of on 21st May 2003.
  2. Whether pleadings, proceedings, judgment and execution in civil suit No. 43 of 2002 are a nullity.
  3. Whether the applicants are entitled to the reliefs claimed.

Orders

  • The judgment and orders of the Magistrate Grade One delivered on May 19, 2003, in Civil No. 43 of 2002, in the Chief Magistrate's Court of Mubende at Kiboga, are a nullity for lack of jurisdiction.
  • All orders and executions arising therefrom are illegal and are hereby set aside.
  • The Respondents are jointly and severally liable to the applicants to a tune of UGX 75,960,000 being the total value of all the 422 cows illegally attached and sold.
  • The award is with interest at court rate from the date of attachment and sale, until payment in full.
  • Each applicant is entitled to the portion of UGX 75,960,000 and interest representing the number of his cows wrongly attached and sold.
  • The Applicants are awarded costs of this application.

Rules and key headnotes

Land & Property — Jurisdiction — Magistrates Courts — Effect of Land Act 1998 s.95(7) as amended by Act 3 of 2001
By virtue of section 95(7) of the Land Act 1998 as amended by Act No. 3 of 2001, Magistrates Courts re-assumed jurisdiction over land disputes as they had prior to the commencement of the Land Act 1998, and this jurisdiction was to continue being exercised until District Land Tribunals commenced their operations. However, once District Land Tribunals had commenced operations, Magistrates Courts lost jurisdiction to hear newly filed land disputes.
Civil Procedure — Jurisdiction — Proceedings Without Jurisdiction — Nullity
Jurisdiction of court is a creature of statute and is expressly conferred by law. If proceedings are conducted by a court without jurisdiction, they are a nullity. Any award, judgment or orders arising from such proceedings of a court acting without jurisdiction are also a nullity.
Civil Procedure — Joinder of Parties — Revision Application — Parties Not to Original Suit
In a revision application, 'parties' who must be given an opportunity to be heard under section 83(d) of the Civil Procedure Act includes not only parties to the original suit but also any other person whose presence before the court may be necessary to enable the court to effectually and completely adjudicate upon and settle all questions involved in the application for revision, in accordance with Order 1 rule 10(2) of the Civil Procedure Rules.
Civil Procedure — Affidavit Evidence — Failure to Reply — Unchallenged Facts
If an applicant supports an application by affidavit or other evidence and the respondent does not reply by affidavit or otherwise, the facts supporting the evidence, being credible in themselves, stand unchallenged.
Civil Procedure — Damages — Burden of Proof — Quantum
A party who asserts a claim for damages must prove it. Claiming an abstract value without supporting evidence of how the figures were arrived at is unrealistic. Where there is no evidence adduced proving that property was of a value different from that indicated in execution warrants, the court may take the value stated in the warrants as the measure of compensation.
Administrative Law — Revisionary Powers of High Court — Scope
The revisionary powers of the High Court under section 83 of the Civil Procedure Act entail a re-examination or careful review, for correction or improvement, of a decision of a magistrate's court after satisfying oneself as to the correctness, legality or propriety of any finding, order or other decision and the regularity of any proceedings of a magistrate's court. It is a wide power exercisable in any proceedings in which it appears that an error material to the merits of the case or involving a miscarriage of justice occurred.

Legislation cited (8)

Cases cited (5)

  • Kyaligonza v Kasangaki (Miscellaneous Application No. 42 of 2005)
  • Desai v Warsaw (1967) EA 351
  • Azama Apollo Oleilma v Nile Micro Finance (U) Ltd & Anor (Miscellaneous Civil Application No. 13 of 2017)
  • Sebirumbi Kisizingo v The Commissioner Land Registration & Another (Civil Appeal No. 16 of 2010)
  • Gandesha & Anor v Lutaya (Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 14 of 1989)

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Mushabe and 2 Others v Kajuna and 2 Others (Revision Application No. 93 of 2005) [2022] UGHC 37 (23 August 2022)
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.