Wakilii

Professor Koma Lee v Paskazio Vudriko and Others (Miscellaneous Application No. 90 of 2024)

High Court · [2025] UGHC 962 · 2025 Revision Allowed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Revision application from Chief Magistrate's Court ruling upholding preliminary objection on pecuniary jurisdiction
Decision
Matter remitted to Chief Magistrate's Court for trial by a different judicial officer

Observed later treatment

Cited — treatment unverified cited in 1 (treatment unverified) Sequitur — Uganda’s citator · Derived from citing cases in the Wakilii corpus — not an assertion that this case is good law.

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.

No adverse treatment recorded Cited 1 time with no adverse treatment recorded; not yet tested on the merits. Derived from citing cases in the Wakilii corpus — a deterministic signal, not legal advice.

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 a Chief Magistrate's Court has unlimited jurisdiction under section 206(2) of the Magistrates Court Act to hear disputes governed only by civil customary law, regardless of the purchase price paid for the land. The purchase of customary land at a consideration does not convert its tenure unless formally converted under section 9 of the Land Act. The claim for trespass has no monetary value and falls within the lower court's jurisdiction. The revision application was allowed and the matter remitted to the Chief Magistrate for trial.

Outcome

Matter remitted to Chief Magistrate's Court for trial by a different judicial officer

Facts

The Applicant purchased 545 acres of communal customary land at Tajiri Leanguru Village, Adjumani District, for UGX 304,500,000 from two vendors who claimed to have inherited it. He filed suit in the Chief Magistrate's Court seeking a declaration that he was a bona fide purchaser and that the Respondents had trespassed on the land. The Respondents raised a preliminary objection that the purchase price exceeded the court's pecuniary jurisdiction. The trial Magistrate Grade One upheld the objection, finding that the purchase converted the matter from one governed by customary law to contract law under the Contract Act, and that the value exceeded the court's pecuniary jurisdiction. The Applicant filed a revision application to the High Court.

Issues

  1. Whether there are sufficient grounds to grant the revision application.
  2. Whether the Applicant lacks locus standi to bring the application.
  3. Whether the Respondents' Affidavit in reply is incompetent for being filed out of time without leave of court.
  4. Whether the Chief Magistrate's Court had jurisdiction to hear and determine a trespass suit concerning customary land purchased at UGX 304,500,000.

Orders

  • The revision application is allowed.
  • The Applicant's name is corrected by amendment from Prof. Koma Lee to Prof. Lee Koma.
  • The preliminary objection that the Applicant lacks locus standi is dismissed.
  • The preliminary objection that the Respondents' Affidavit in reply was filed out of time is dismissed.
  • The Chief Magistrate is to try the main suit (Civil Suit No. 0014 of 2024).
  • Costs of the application are awarded to the Applicant.

Rules and key headnotes

Civil Procedure — Magistrates' Jurisdiction — Customary Land Disputes — Unlimited Jurisdiction
Under section 206(2) of the Magistrates Court Act Cap. 19, where a cause or matter of a civil nature is governed only by civil customary law, the jurisdiction of a Chief Magistrate and a Magistrate Grade I is unlimited, regardless of the monetary value of the subject matter.
Land & Property — Customary Land Tenure — Purchase at Consideration — Effect on Tenure
The purchase of customary land at a consideration does not automatically convert the land tenure system from customary to another form. Customary land remains governed by civil customary law unless formally converted by registration under section 9 of the Land Act Cap. 236.
Civil Procedure — Pecuniary Jurisdiction — Trespass Claims — Valuation
A claim for trespass to land does not have a monetary value for purposes of determining pecuniary jurisdiction. The remedy sought is a declaration and injunctive relief, not damages, and therefore the value of the land does not determine the court's jurisdiction over the trespass claim.
Civil Procedure — Misnomer — Amendment of Party Names
Where a party's name is incorrectly written but the correct person is identifiable, the case is one of misnomer rather than misidentification. Under Order 1 Rule 10 of the Civil Procedure Rules, the court may order correction of the name by amendment where the error was made in good faith.
Civil Procedure — Preliminary Objections — Nature and Determination
A preliminary objection raises a pure point of law argued on the assumption that all facts pleaded by the other side are correct. It must be capable of disposing of the matter preliminarily without the court having to ascertain facts from elsewhere apart from the pleadings.

Legislation cited (17)

Cases cited (5)

  • Mukisa Biscuit Manufacturing Ltd v West End Distributors Ltd (1969) EA 697
  • Quick Enterprises Ltd Versus Kenya Airways Corporation High Court (Kisumu) Civil Case No. 22 of 1999
  • Avtar Singh Bhamra & Another Versus Oriental Commercial Bank, Kisumu High Court Civil Case No.53 of 2004
  • Trust Ventures Ltd vs. Powerfoam (U) Ltd Civil Suit No. 669 of 2017
  • J.B Kohli & Others v Bachulal Popatlal [1964] EA 219

Cases citing this judgment (1)

How later Ugandan judgments in the Wakilii corpus have cited this case. Treatment labels come from Sequitur — Uganda’s citator — each backed by a verbatim span from the citing judgment, and are not an assertion that this case is, or is not, good law.

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Professor Koma Lee v Paskazio Vudriko and Others (Miscellaneous Application No. 90 of 2024) [2025] UGHC 962 (3 September 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.