Wakilii

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

High Court · [1998] UGHC 28 · 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 civil suit in the High Court
Decision
Application to strike out suit dismissed; suit may proceed in the High Court

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 in all matters under the Constitution and Judicature Statute, subject only to the Constitution. Section 16(1) of the Non Performing Assets Recovery Trust Statute does not expressly oust the High Court's jurisdiction. For a statute to oust the High Court's jurisdiction it must say so expressly or by irresistible inference. The NPART Statute creates an alternative forum, not an exclusive one. A party may choose to file either in the NPART Tribunal or the High Court. Application dismissed.

Outcome

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

Facts

Non Performing Assets Recovery Trust was the defendant in a civil suit brought by Kagadu Enterprises in the High Court. The Trust applied to strike out the suit, arguing that the cause of action related to a non-performing asset subject to the Non Performing Assets Recovery Trust Statute 1/94, and that section 16(1) of that Statute vested exclusive jurisdiction in the Non-Performing Assets Recovery Tribunal, not the High Court. The Trust argued that the High Court therefore had no jurisdiction to hear the matter.

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 it.
  2. What is the fate of the suit already filed in the High Court.

Orders

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

Rules and key headnotes

Civil Procedure — Jurisdiction — Ouster of High Court Jurisdiction
For a statute to oust the jurisdiction of the High Court, it must say so expressly, or the inference of ouster must be irresistible from the words of the statute.
Constitutional Law — Supremacy of the Constitution — High Court Jurisdiction
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 — Mandatory Language — Use of 'Shall'
The mere use of the word 'shall' in a statute does not necessarily oust the jurisdiction of the High Court, as that word is not necessarily mandatory.
Administrative Law — Tribunals — Concurrent Jurisdiction with High Court
A statute creating a tribunal and conferring jurisdiction upon it does not necessarily oust the jurisdiction of the High Court where the statute does not expressly say so; the tribunal may operate as an alternative forum to the High Court, with parties having a choice of forum.

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 (H.C.C.S. 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 28 (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.