N v Uganda Enterprises Ltd (Civil Appeal No. 26 of 1998)

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.

Holding

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, holding that section 16(1) of the Non-Performing Assets Recovery Trust Statute did not oust the High Court's jurisdiction. Article 139(1) of the 1995 Constitution and section 16(1) of the Judicature Statute confer unlimited original jurisdiction on the High Court in all matters, which cannot be removed by an ordinary statute enacted before the Constitution. The NPART provision could only exclude courts other than the High Court, so the Tribunal and the High Court enjoy concurrent jurisdiction. The respondent's suit was an ordinary claim for breach of contract and specific performance, not a matter of recovering a non-performing asset.

Outcome

Appeal dismissed; High Court retains jurisdiction to hear the respondent's suit

Facts

The respondent, Kagadu Enterprises Ltd, sued the Uganda Commercial Bank and the Non-Performing Assets Recovery Trust in the High Court, claiming general damages and an order for specific performance arising from a loan transaction, and seeking an order restraining the sale of its property. The appellant applied to strike out the suit, contending that under section 16(1) of the Non-Performing Assets Recovery Trust Statute the High Court had no jurisdiction, jurisdiction lying exclusively with the Non-Performing Assets Recovery Tribunal. The trial Judge held that section 16(1) did not expressly oust the High Court's jurisdiction and that any law purporting to do so would contravene Article 139(1) of the Constitution and section 16(1) of the Judicature Statute, which confer unlimited original jurisdiction. He dismissed the application with costs, treating the Tribunal as an alternative forum. The appellant appealed on four grounds.

Issues

1. Whether section 16(1) of the Non-Performing Assets Recovery Trust Statute ousts the jurisdiction of the High Court over the respondent's suit.
2. Whether the respondent's suit was a matter arising from a non-performing asset within the terms of the NPART Statute or an ordinary suit for breach of contract and specific performance.

Orders

• Appeal dismissed.
• Costs of the appeal to the respondent.

Rules and key headnotes

Legislation cited (4)

• Constitution of Uganda 1995 Article 139(1)
• Judicature Statute 1996 s.16(1)
• Non-Performing Assets Recovery Trust Statute 1994 s.16(1)
• Constitution of Uganda 1967 Article 83(1)

Cases cited (1)

• David Kayondo v The Co-operative Bank (U) Ltd (Civil Appeal No. 10 of 1991)

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