Wakilii

Peter Kabuubi v The Registered Trustees of Bunyoro Kitara Diocese of Hoima and Another (Civil Revision 1 of 1992)

High Court · [1992] UGHC 101 · 1992 Revision Allowed — Judgments Set Aside AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Civil revision from Chief Magistrate's Court, Masindi — exparte judgments in two civil suits seeking setting aside on grounds of procedural irregularity
Decision
Exparte judgments set aside and matters remitted to Magistrate's Court for full trial

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

Held that the Chief Magistrate exercised his jurisdiction wholly illegally and with unmitigated irregularity by entering final judgments without hearing evidence or complying with Civil Procedure Rules. The court has inherent jurisdiction to set aside a bad exparte judgment that should not have been given. The exparte judgments in both civil suits and all consequential orders were set aside, and the matters were remitted for full trial.

Outcome

Exparte judgments set aside and matters remitted to Magistrate's Court for full trial

Facts

The petitioner was defendant in two civil suits before the Chief Magistrate of Masindi. In Civil Suit No. MH 23 of 1991, the Registered Trustees of Bunyoro Kitara Diocese claimed 5 acres of land which the petitioner intended to survey and register despite the dispute. In Civil Suit No. MH 24 of 1991, the petitioner's uncle sued over family land that the petitioner intended to survey and register. The Chief Magistrate entered exparte judgments against the petitioner in both suits in July 1991 on the basis of letters from counsel without hearing any evidence. The petitioner applied to set aside the exparte judgment in Civil Suit No. MH 23 of 1991, but the successor Magistrate dismissed the application in March 1992. The petitioner then sought revision in the High Court.

Issues

  1. Whether the exparte judgments entered by the Chief Magistrate in Civil Suit No. MH 23 of 1991 and Civil Suit No. MH 24 of 1991 were validly entered.
  2. Whether the High Court should exercise its revisional jurisdiction under section 84(c) of the Civil Procedure Act to set aside the exparte judgments.
  3. Whether the service of court process was defective and failed to comply with the requirements of Order 5 Rule 17 of the Civil Procedure Rules.

Orders

  • The judgments entered in Civil Suit No. MH 23 of 1991 and Civil Suit No. MH 24 of 1991 are hereby set aside.
  • All consequential orders in both suits are hereby set aside.
  • The petitioner shall bear the costs of this petition in the High Court.
  • Each party shall bear his own costs in respect of proceedings before the Chief Magistrate which have been set aside.
  • There shall be a full trial of each of the two suits before either a Chief Magistrate or Magistrate Grade 1.
  • The trials should be expedited.
  • There should be no survey of any of the two disputed pieces of land pending final disposal of the suits including any appeals.
  • The respondents should not carry out any fresh development on the disputed land pending final disposal of the suits.
  • The petitioner should file his defence within 7 days.

Rules and key headnotes

Civil Procedure — Exparte Judgments — Duty to Hear Evidence — Entry of Final Judgment Without Evidence
No final judgment may be entered for any party without receipt of evidence. Where a defendant defaults in entering appearance, hearing may proceed under Order 9 Rule 3 of the Civil Procedure Rules, but judgment cannot be entered without evidence.
Civil Procedure — Service of Process — Defective Affidavit of Service — Requirements of Order 5 Rule 17
An affidavit of service must comply with the requirements of Order 5 Rule 17 of the Civil Procedure Rules. Where the process server fails to state how service was effected, the affidavit is defective and any judgment entered on the basis of such defective service is liable to be set aside.
Judicial Review — Inherent Jurisdiction of Court — Setting Aside Bad Exparte Orders — Ex Debito Justitiae
The court has inherent jurisdiction to set aside a bad exparte order or judgment which should not have been given, because the party affected by such order or exparte judgment is entitled ex debito justitiae to have it set aside.
Civil Procedure — Revision — Appeal as a Matter of Right — Invocation of Section 84(c) of Civil Procedure Act
Where an application to set aside an exparte judgment is dismissed, the proper remedy is to institute an appeal as a matter of right. It is improper to invoke the revisional jurisdiction under section 84(c) of the Civil Procedure Act where a right of appeal exists.

Legislation cited (3)

Cases cited (6)

  • Khamis v Kirobo [1958] 23 EACA 195
  • Rebecca Mulira v Hoti B. Dass [1971] IULR 269
  • Jamil P. Calani v S.E. Ngakwila [1971] HCB 162
  • M.B. Automobile v Kampala Bus Service [1966] EA 480
  • Metha /1960/ EA 305
  • E. Bameka v D. Nyiri [1973] HWP 174

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Peter Kabuubi v The Registered Trustees of Bunyoro Kitara Diocese of Hoima and Another (Civil Revision 1 of 1992) [1992] UGHC 101 (20 August 1992)
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.