Wakilii

Musinguzi Alwyn Carl Garuga v Muhebwa Benson (Civil Revision No. 5 of 2024)

High Court · [2025] UGCOMMC 478 · 2025 Application Partly Allowed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Application for revision of Chief Magistrate's Court judgment under Section 83 of the Civil Procedure Act
Decision
Revision application partly allowed; principal refund order upheld but expenses and interest awards set aside

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 partly allowed the revision application. The court held that the Chief Magistrate's Court had jurisdiction to hear the small claims matter as it did not involve a contract of service or for service. However, the award of expenses to the respondent contravened Rule 29 of the Judicature (Small Claims Procedure) Rules 2011, which requires each party to bear their own expenses. The court revised the judgment by setting aside the awards of UGX 200,000 for service expenses and UGX 79,000 for filing fees, and removed the interest component, but upheld the principal refund order of UGX 4,000,000.

Outcome

Revision application partly allowed; principal refund order upheld but expenses and interest awards set aside

Facts

The applicant and respondent were negotiating a mortgage transaction whereby the applicant would advance UGX 147,000,000 to the respondent as a loan secured by the respondent's certificate of title. The respondent paid UGX 4,000,000 to the applicant to facilitate the loan: UGX 1,000,000 for valuation and UGX 3,000,000 for stamp duty. The transaction did not materialize because the applicant discovered the security was encumbered and already used in another loan transaction. The respondent was not refunded the UGX 4,000,000. The respondent filed a small claim in the Chief Magistrate's Court of Nakawa seeking recovery of the money. The Chief Magistrate found in favour of the respondent on the principle of money had and received, ordering refund of UGX 4,000,000 plus interest at 8% per annum, and awarded UGX 200,000 for service expenses and UGX 79,000 for filing fees. The applicant sought revision of this judgment.

Issues

  1. Whether the Affidavit in reply is competently filed before this Honourable Court.
  2. Whether the application discloses grounds for revision.

Orders

  • The applicant refunds the respondent UGX 4,000,000 being monies for a loan processing activity which never materialized.
  • Each party bears its own costs.
  • The award of UGX 200,000 as expenses spent on service of court process is set aside.
  • The award of UGX 79,000 as filing fees is set aside.
  • The award of interest at 8% per annum on the decretal sum is set aside.

Rules and key headnotes

Civil Procedure — Affidavits in Reply — Time for Filing — Distinction from Written Statement of Defence
An affidavit in reply, being evidence rather than a pleading in stricto sensu, is not subject to the strict timelines applicable to written statements of defence under Order 8 rule 1(2) of the Civil Procedure Rules; it should be filed within a reasonable time before the hearing date sufficient to allow the adverse party a fair opportunity to respond.
Civil Procedure — Revision — Grounds for Exercise of Revisionary Jurisdiction
The High Court may exercise revisionary powers under Section 83 of the Civil Procedure Act where a Magistrate's Court has exercised jurisdiction not vested in it in law, failed to exercise jurisdiction so vested, or acted in exercise of jurisdiction illegally or with material irregularity or injustice.
Civil Procedure — Small Claims Procedure — Jurisdiction — Contracts of Service and Contracts for Service
Rule 5(2)(g) of the Judicature (Small Claims Procedure) Rules 2011 excludes contracts of service and contracts for service from the small claims procedure; a failed mortgage transaction involving advance payment for loan processing does not constitute a contract of service or for service and therefore falls within the jurisdiction of the small claims court.
Civil Procedure — Small Claims Procedure — Costs and Expenses — Rule 29
Rule 29 of the Judicature (Small Claims Procedure) Rules 2011 provides that a party to a claim shall bear his or her own expenses; an award of expenses for service of court process and filing fees in a small claims matter contravenes this rule and constitutes an illegal exercise of jurisdiction.
Evidence — Burden of Proof — Legal Burden and Evidential Burden — Shifting of Evidential Burden
While the legal burden of proof remains with the plaintiff throughout the proceedings, the evidential burden shifts depending on the effectiveness with which evidence is adduced; once the plaintiff adduces sufficient evidence to establish a prima facie case, the evidential burden shifts to the defendant to rebut that evidence.

Legislation cited (17)

Cases cited (18)

  • Sserunjoji Bernard v Sekyanzi Adrian (Miscellaneous Cause No. 28 of 2024)
  • Serefaco Consults Ltd v Euro Consult BV (Civil Application No. 16 of 2007)
  • Prof. Baryamureeba Venansius v St. Augustine International University Ltd & Anor (Civil Suit No. 295 of 2018)
  • Makula International Ltd v His Eminence Cardinal Nsubuga & Anor (1982) HCB 11
  • Auto Garage v Motokov [1971] 514
  • Kensheka v Uganda Development Bank (High Court Civil Suit No. 469 of 2011)
  • Edison Kanyabwera v Pastori Tumwebaze [2001-2005] HCB 98
  • Stop and See (U) Ltd v Tropical Africa Bank Ltd (High Court Miscellaneous Application No. 333 of 2010)
  • Senyonjo v Wakiso District Local Government Council & Another (Miscellaneous Cause No. 232 of 2023)
  • Dr. Lam Lagoro James v Muni University (High Court Miscellaneous Cause No. 7 of 2016)
  • Munobwa Mohamed v Uganda Moslem Supreme Council (Civil Revision No. 1 of 2006)
  • Kisame Samson v Ali Kiyinkibi [2010] UGHC 21
  • Twine Amos v Tamusuza James (Civil Revision No. 11 of 2009)
  • Arimazan Zziwa v Angella Kintu (High Court Miscellaneous Application No. 7 of 1993)
  • Natukunda and Another v Kato (Review Cause No. 11 of 2019)
  • Okullu and Another v Ocepa (Labour Dispute Reference No. 9 of 2022)
  • Isaac Aluoch Polo Aluochier v The Senate & 2 Ors Petition No. E014 of 2025
  • Raila Odinga & another v Independent Electoral and Boundaries Commission & 2 others; Aukot & another (Interested Parties); Attorney General & another (Amicus Curiae) (Presidential Election Petition 1 of 2017) [2017] KESC 42 (KLR)

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Musinguzi Alwyn Carl Garuga v Muhebwa Benson (Civil Revision No. 5 of 2024) [2025] UGCommC 478 (28 November 2025)
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.