Wakilii

Namuyiga Catherine v Pastor Makubuya Fred (Miscellaneous Cause No. 37 of 2024)

High Court · [2025] UGHC 1091 · 2025 Application Dismissed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Application for revision of magistrate's ruling setting aside ex parte judgment
Decision
Application dismissed; underlying land suit remitted to trial court for hearing on merits with evidence already recorded to be adopted

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 dismissed an application for revision of a magistrate's ruling that set aside an ex parte judgment. The court held that a Magistrate Grade One acted within jurisdiction under Order 9 rule 27 of the Civil Procedure Rules when setting aside an ex parte judgment entered by a Senior Magistrate Grade One on grounds of lack of service. The magistrate's finding that proceeding without proper service violated the constitutional right to a fair hearing under Article 28 was lawful and proper. Revision is not a substitute for appeal and will not lie where a court has acted within jurisdiction.

Outcome

Application dismissed; underlying land suit remitted to trial court for hearing on merits with evidence already recorded to be adopted

Facts

The applicant obtained Letters of Administration to her late mother's estate in 1999, including kibanja land at Kyerima, Kayunga District. In 2014, she sued the respondent and others for trespass, claiming they unlawfully occupied the land. After numerous adjournments, the trial proceeded ex parte on 21 September 2017 when defendants failed to attend. Judgment was entered for the applicant on 31 October 2017, ordering defendants to vacate, pay UGX 6,000,000 each in damages, and costs. The respondent was arrested and committed to civil prison on 1 February 2018 for non-compliance. He then applied to set aside the ex parte judgment, asserting he was never served with the hearing notice. On 23 February 2018, a Magistrate Grade One set aside the judgment, decree and execution, finding lack of proper service violated the constitutional right to a fair hearing. Six years later, the applicant sought revision, arguing the Magistrate Grade One lacked jurisdiction to set aside a judgment entered by a Senior Magistrate Grade One.

Issues

  1. Whether the ruling of His Worship Imalingat Robert delivered on 23 February 2018 in Miscellaneous Application No. 005 of 2018 should be revised.
  2. What remedies are available to the parties.

Orders

  • The application for revision is dismissed.
  • The ruling and orders of His Worship Imalingat Robert delivered on 23 February 2018 in Miscellaneous Application No. 005 of 2018 are upheld.
  • Civil Suit No. 027 of 2014 shall proceed to hearing on its merits before the trial court.
  • The trial court shall adopt the evidence and record already taken between 2016 and 2017, including locus in quo notes and sketch map, in accordance with Order 18 rule 11 of the Civil Procedure Rules.
  • The Respondent shall be afforded a fair opportunity to cross-examine those witnesses and to adduce evidence in rebuttal.
  • The costs of this application shall abide the outcome of the main suit.

Rules and key headnotes

Civil Procedure — Revision — Jurisdiction — Grounds for Revision under Section 83 of the Civil Procedure Act
The power of revision under section 83 of the Civil Procedure Act permits the High Court to intervene where a magistrate's court has exercised jurisdiction not vested in it by law, failed to exercise jurisdiction so vested, or acted in the exercise of its jurisdiction illegally, with material irregularity or injustice.
Civil Procedure — Ex Parte Judgments — Setting Aside — Jurisdiction of Magistrate Grade One under Order 9 Rule 27
A Magistrate Grade One has jurisdiction under Order 9 rule 27 of the Civil Procedure Rules to set aside an ex parte judgment entered by a Senior Magistrate Grade One where the application is made to the same court that passed the decree and sufficient cause is shown, notwithstanding the difference in magisterial rank.
Civil Procedure — Ex Parte Judgments — Setting Aside — Lack of Service as Sufficient Cause
Lack of effective service of a hearing notice is a well-recognised ground for setting aside an ex parte judgment under Order 9 rule 27 of the Civil Procedure Rules, and a judgment obtained without proper service is a nullity that offends the constitutional guarantee of a fair hearing under Article 28 of the Constitution.
Judicial Review — Revision — Scope of Revisional Jurisdiction — Not a Substitute for Appeal
Revision is not a substitute for appeal. The High Court will not interfere with a decision properly made within jurisdiction merely because it might have reached a different conclusion, where no illegality, procedural irregularity or injustice has been demonstrated.
Civil Procedure — Evidence — Adoption of Evidence Already Recorded under Order 18 Rule 11
Where an ex parte judgment is set aside and a matter is remitted for hearing on merits, the trial court may adopt evidence and record already taken in earlier proceedings under Order 18 rule 11 of the Civil Procedure Rules, provided the opposing party is afforded a fair opportunity to cross-examine witnesses and adduce evidence in rebuttal.

Legislation cited (7)

Cases cited (2)

  • Makula International v Cardinal Nsubuga (1982) HCB 11
  • Kiprotich v Uganda (1968) EA 102

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Namuyiga Catherine v Pastor Makubuya Fred (Miscellaneous Cause No. 37 of 2024) [2025] UGHC 1091 (15 October 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.