Wakilii

Non Performing Assets Recovery Trust v Kagadu Enterprises (Miscellaneous Application 394 of 1998)

High Court · [1998] UGHC 52 · 1998 Application Dismissed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Application to strike out suit for lack of jurisdiction, arising from High Court Civil Suit No. 272 of 1998
Decision
Application to strike out suit dismissed; suit may proceed in the High Court; leave to appeal granted

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 has unlimited original jurisdiction under Article 139(1) of the Constitution and section 16(1) of the Judicature Statute, subject only to the Constitution. A statute seeking to oust the High Court's jurisdiction must do so expressly or by irresistible inference. Section 16(1) of the Non Performing Assets Recovery Trust Statute does not expressly oust the High Court's jurisdiction but creates an alternative forum. A party may choose to file in either the NPART Tribunal or the High Court. Application to strike out dismissed with costs.

Outcome

Application to strike out suit dismissed; suit may proceed in the High Court; leave to appeal granted

Facts

The Non Performing Assets Recovery Trust applied by Notice of Motion under Order 13 rule 2 and Order 48 rule 1 of the Civil Procedure Rules to strike out a suit filed by Kagadu Enterprises in the High Court. The application arose from High Court Civil Suit No. 272 of 1998. The applicant contended that the cause of action related to a non-performing asset subject to the Non Performing Assets Recovery Trust Statute 1/94, and that jurisdiction was exclusively vested in the Non-Performing Assets Recovery Tribunal under section 16(1) of that Statute. The respondent opposed, arguing that the High Court has unlimited original jurisdiction under the Constitution and the Judicature Statute, which cannot be ousted without express wording, and that the NPART Statute creates an alternative forum rather than ousting the High Court's jurisdiction.

Issues

  1. Whether section 16(1) of the Non Performing Assets Recovery Trust Statute ousted the jurisdiction of the High Court and vested it exclusively in the Tribunal created under the Statute.
  2. What is the fate of a suit filed in the High Court concerning a non-performing asset subject to the NPART Statute.

Orders

  • Application dismissed.
  • Costs awarded to the respondent/plaintiff.
  • Leave to appeal granted to the applicant.

Rules and key headnotes

Constitutional Law — Supremacy of Constitution — Jurisdiction of High Court — Ouster by Statute
Under Article 139(1) of the Constitution of Uganda 1995 and section 16(1) of the Judicature Statute 13/96, the High Court has unlimited original jurisdiction in all matters, subject only to the provisions of the Constitution, not to any other law.
Statutory Interpretation — Ouster of Jurisdiction — Express Words Required
For a statute to oust the jurisdiction of the High Court, it must say so expressly, or the inference from the words of the statute must be irresistible; the mere use of the word 'shall' in conferring jurisdiction on a tribunal is not necessarily mandatory and does not automatically oust the High Court's jurisdiction.
Administrative Law — Tribunals — Exclusive Jurisdiction — Alternative Forum
Where a statute creates a tribunal with stated jurisdiction over certain matters but does not expressly oust the High Court's jurisdiction, the tribunal operates as an alternative forum, and a party may choose to file proceedings in either the tribunal or the High Court.
Civil Procedure — Striking Out — Lack of Jurisdiction — Burden of Proof
An application to strike out a suit on the ground that the High Court lacks jurisdiction must demonstrate that the statute in question expressly ousts the High Court's unlimited original jurisdiction conferred by the Constitution and the Judicature Statute.

Legislation cited (7)

Cases cited (3)

  • David Kayondo v Co-operative Bank (Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 10 of 1991)
  • Chite v EAC [1970] EA 487
  • Phoebe Mugabe v Print Pak (U) Ltd (High Court Civil Suit No. 910 of 1993)

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Non Performing Assets Recovery Trust v Kagadu Enterprises (Miscellaneous Application 394 of 1998) [1998] UGHC 52 (10 June 1998)
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.