Nampeera Norah and Others v SBI International Holdings AG (U) Ltd (Miscellaneous Appeal No. 75 of 2022)
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 the Deputy Registrar erred in dismissing Miscellaneous Application No. 383 of 2019 for want of jurisdiction. Where a Registrar finds they lack jurisdiction to entertain a matter, they must refer it back to a judge under Order 50 rule 7 of the Civil Procedure Rules rather than dismissing it. The application sought substantive reliefs including special and exemplary damages which could only be granted by a trial judge. The Registrar should have referred the matter back to the judge for determination.
Outcome
Matter remitted to Deputy Registrar with direction to place Miscellaneous Application No. 383 of 2019 before a judge for hearing
Facts
The appellants filed Miscellaneous Application No. 383 of 2019 seeking payment of UGX 1,512,156,249 for rebuilding houses, exemplary damages of UGX 200,000,000 for contempt, and a permanent injunction, all arising from a consent judgment dated 29 June 2016 in Civil Suit No. 940 of 2015. The consent judgment provided that the respondent would pay UGX 200,000,000 in full and final settlement and would rehabilitate the appellants' houses after blasting within 18 months from 1 July 2016. On 14 April 2021, the Deputy Registrar allocated the application to the trial judge who returned it on the ground that execution of court orders is for Registrars. On 9 February 2022, the Deputy Registrar dismissed the application on the ground that she lacked jurisdiction to handle it and that it should be handled by a judge. The appellants appealed this dismissal.
Issues
- Whether the learned Deputy Registrar erred in law when she dismissed High Court Miscellaneous Application No. 383 of 2019 for want of jurisdiction.
- Whether the learned Deputy Registrar erred in law when she failed to refer the file in Miscellaneous Application No. 383 of 2019 to a Judge of the High Court.
Orders
- Appeal allowed.
- The decision of the learned Deputy Registrar dismissing High Court Miscellaneous Application No. 383 of 2019 is hereby set aside.
- The Deputy Registrar of this court is hereby directed to place High Court Miscellaneous Application No. 383 of 2019 before a judge of this court for hearing.
- Each party shall bear their own costs of this appeal since none of the parties was at fault.
Rules and key headnotes
Legislation cited (8)
Cases cited (7)
- Kifamunte Henry v Uganda (Supreme Court Criminal Appeal No. 10 of 1997)
- Oscar Andreas Cardenas Espinosa v Nakimuli Mariam Cardenas (CMA No. 112 of 2017)
- Mohammed Allibhai v W.E Bukenya and Another (Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 56 of 1996)
- Attorney General v James Mark Kamoga (Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 8 of 2004)
- Pulkeria Nakaggwa v Dominiko Kiggundu [1978] HCB 310
- Desai v Warsama [1967] 1 EA 351
- Florence Dawaru v Agumale Albino and Another (HCCA No. 0096 of 2016)
Full judgment
The original judgment as reported. Read the original PDF before relying on any passage.