Wakilii

Namirembe Madalena v Tayebwa Bernard Kakongi (Revision Cause No. 028 of 2023)

High Court · [2025] UGHCLD 58 · 2025 Revision Allowed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Revision application from Chief Magistrate's Court judgment
Decision
Orders of the lower court set aside; matter remitted to trial court for appropriate action

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 lacks jurisdiction to hear trespass actions regardless of the value of the subject matter, as such actions are confined to Chief Magistrates under the Magistrates Courts Act. The trial magistrate in Civil Suit No. 218 of 2012 exercised jurisdiction not vested in her by law when she determined a trespass claim. Judgments and orders of a court without jurisdiction are nullities and must be set aside. The orders of the Magistrate Grade One were set aside and the file remitted to the trial court for appropriate action.

Outcome

Orders of the lower court set aside; matter remitted to trial court for appropriate action

Facts

The applicant claimed ownership of a kibanja interest in Kikusa-Muwanyi, Wakiso district, having been in possession since 1973. Around 2011, the respondent allegedly trespassed on the kibanja. The applicant filed a complaint at Ssisa Sub County LCIII Court vide Civil Suit No. 59 of 2011, which resolved that the applicant should continue using the kibanja. Around April 2023, the applicant received threats from the respondent to vacate, claiming he had obtained a judgment in his favour from the Chief Magistrate's Court of Entebbe in Civil Suit No. 218 of 2012. Upon investigation, the applicant discovered that the judgment was issued by Magistrate Grade One HW Juliana Kimono on 16 September 2014. The applicant brought this revision application alleging the trial magistrate exercised jurisdiction not vested in her and acted with material irregularity by proceeding despite knowing of the LCIII court proceedings.

Issues

  1. Whether the trial magistrate exercised jurisdiction not vested in her by law.
  2. Whether the magistrate court acted with material irregularity when it continued with the hearing of Civil Suit No. 218 of 2012 despite being put on notice that there were already proceedings in the sub county local council court in respect to the same subject matter.
  3. What remedies are available for the parties.

Orders

  • The orders of the Magistrate Grade 1 issued on the 16th of September 2014 vide Civil Suit No. 218 of 2012 are hereby set aside by this court.
  • The deputy registrar shall send back the file to the trial court for appropriate action.
  • No orders as to costs.

Rules and key headnotes

Civil Procedure — Revision — Jurisdiction — Grounds for Revision under Civil Procedure Act s.83
Under section 83 of the Civil Procedure Act, the High Court may revise a case determined by a Magistrate's Court if that court exercised jurisdiction not vested in it by law, failed to exercise jurisdiction so vested, or acted in the exercise of its jurisdiction illegally or with material irregularity or injustice. Revision applies to jurisdiction alone, the irregular exercise or non-exercise of it, or illegal assumption of it, and is not directed against conclusions of law or fact where the question of jurisdiction is not involved.
Civil Procedure — Magistrates' Jurisdiction — Trespass Actions — Pecuniary and Subject Matter Jurisdiction
Actions for trespass, without considering the value of the subject matter, are confined to the jurisdiction of Chief Magistrates only under section 207(1)(b) of the Magistrates Courts Act. A Magistrate Grade One lacks jurisdiction to hear trespass actions regardless of value. A Magistrate Grade One is guided by both pecuniary jurisdiction (UGX 20,000,000) and territorial jurisdiction, but does not have subject matter jurisdiction over trespass claims.
Civil Procedure — Jurisdiction — Nullity — Effect of Lack of Jurisdiction
Judgments and orders of a court without jurisdiction, however precisely certain they are, are a nullity and only fit to be set aside. Where a magistrate presides over a matter not within her jurisdiction, the decision occasions a miscarriage of justice and establishes sufficient ground for the High Court to revise the orders issued under section 83 of the Civil Procedure Act.

Legislation cited (5)

Cases cited (4)

  • Kawaga Lawrence and 2 Others v Ziwa and Sons Property Consultants Ltd (Civil Revision No. 04 of 2018)
  • Samwiri Massa v Rose Achen [1978] HCB 297
  • Matemba v Yamulinga [1968] 1 EA 643
  • Byekwaso Pafula and Others v Cecilia Lwanga (Civil Appeal No. 027 of 2023)

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Namirembe_Madalena_v_Tayebwa_Bernard_Kakongi_(Revision_Cause_No._028_of_2023)_[2025]_UGHCLD_58_(7_May_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.