Wakilii

Nassuna Peninah Ruth v Male James (Miscellaneous Civil Appeal No. 30 of 2024)

High Court · [2025] UGHCLD 298 · 2025 Appeal Allowed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Appeal from Assistant Registrar's ruling dismissing application for review
Decision
Appeal allowed; Assistant Registrar's ruling set aside; review application remitted to a judge for hearing

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 an Assistant Registrar lacks jurisdiction to determine review applications under Order 46 of the Civil Procedure Rules, as such jurisdiction is expressly vested in judges. A person aggrieved by a Registrar's decision has an automatic right of appeal to the High Court under Order 50 Rule 8 without requiring leave. The court set aside the Assistant Registrar's ruling and remitted the review application for hearing before a judge.

Outcome

Appeal allowed; Assistant Registrar's ruling set aside; review application remitted to a judge for hearing

Facts

The Appellant is the administrator of the estate of the late Namatovu Robinah, who held a kibanja interest on the Respondent's mailo land. Namatovu Robinah sold the kibanja to the Seventh Day Adventist Association without the landlord's consent. The Respondent successfully sued in the Magistrates Court, and the judgment was upheld on appeal by the High Court. The Respondent then applied for execution by eviction, which was granted by Assistant Registrar Zirintusa Kintu. The Appellant filed a review application challenging this eviction order, arguing no such order had been made by any court. The review application was dismissed by Assistant Registrar Butanula Rashida. The Appellant appealed, contending the Assistant Registrar lacked jurisdiction to determine review applications.

Issues

  1. Whether the Appellant required leave of court to appeal against the Assistant Registrar's order dismissing the review application.
  2. Whether the Assistant Registrar had jurisdiction to entertain and determine an application for review.

Orders

  • The Ruling and Orders of the Assistant Registrar in Miscellaneous Application No. 69 of 2022 are hereby set aside.
  • Miscellaneous Application No. 69 of 2022 shall be cause listed for hearing before a Judge.
  • The Ruling/Order issued by His Worship Zirintusa Kintu in Execution Miscellaneous Application No. 177 of 2021 should not be effected pending the outcome or disposal of Miscellaneous Application No. 69 of 2022.
  • Each party shall bear their own cost of the Appeal.

Rules and key headnotes

Civil Procedure — Jurisdiction of Registrars — Review Applications — Limits on Registrar's Powers
An Assistant Registrar of the High Court lacks jurisdiction to determine applications for review under Order 46 of the Civil Procedure Rules. The jurisdiction to review decrees or orders is expressly vested in the judge who passed the decree or made the order sought to be reviewed, and this power is not among those delegated to registrars under Order 50 or Practice Direction No. 1 of 2002.
Civil Procedure — Appeals — Right of Appeal from Registrar's Decision — No Leave Required
Under Order 50 Rule 8 of the Civil Procedure Rules, any person aggrieved by an order of a registrar has an automatic right to appeal to the High Court without requiring leave of court. The requirement to seek leave under Order 44 Rule 2 applies only to appeals from orders of judges, not registrars.
Civil Procedure — Jurisdiction — Statutory Limits — Nullity of Decisions Without Jurisdiction
Jurisdiction is a creature of statute and must be specifically provided by law. A court cannot arrogate to itself jurisdiction beyond what is provided under the law. A decision of a court without jurisdiction is a nullity.
Civil Procedure — Powers of Registrars — Referral to Judge — Scope of Order 50 Rule 7
Order 50 Rule 7 of the Civil Procedure Rules empowers a registrar to refer a matter within their jurisdiction to a judge when it appears proper for the judge's decision. This provision does not empower a judge to refer matters to a registrar for determination where those matters fall outside the registrar's jurisdiction.

Legislation cited (12)

Cases cited (8)

  • Shah v Attorney General (1971) EA 50
  • Ocen Kassim v Soroti District Land Board and 2 Others (HCMA No. 77 of 2020)
  • Attorney General v Uganda Land Commission and Another (SCCA No. 8 of 2004)
  • Faustine Ntambara v Benon Subjisho (SCCA No. 8 of 2021)
  • Musisi Steven and 5 Others v John Bosco Mayanja and Another (High Court Miscellaneous Appeal No. 3389 of 2023)
  • Uganda Railway Corporation v Ekwaru D.O. and 5104 Others (SCCA No. 7 of 2019)
  • Florence Dawaru v Agumale Albino and Another (HCCA No. 96 of 2016)
  • Attorney General v James Mark Kamoga (SCCA No. 8 of 2004)

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Nassuna_Peninah_Ruth_v_Male_James_(Miscellaneous_Civil_Appeal_No._30_of_2024)_[2025]_UGHCLD_298_(29_August_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.