Wakilii

Regina Benham and 6 Others v Lwaasa (Civil Suit No. 215 of 2016)

High Court · [2021] UGHCLD 157 · 2021 Preliminary Objection Upheld AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Ruling on preliminary objection to admissibility of evidence from proceedings in a lower court dismissed for lack of jurisdiction
Decision
Preliminary objection upheld; defendant ordered to re-call 1st Plaintiff to give fresh evidence 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 court held that proceedings conducted by a court without jurisdiction are a nullity, and any judgment or evidence arising from such proceedings is also void. The judgment and record of proceedings from Civil Suit No. 81/2010 at Makindye Court were inadmissible as evidence because that court lacked jurisdiction. Testimony given in nullified proceedings forms part of those proceedings and is rendered void. The preliminary objection was upheld.

Outcome

Preliminary objection upheld; defendant ordered to re-call 1st Plaintiff to give fresh evidence in the High Court

Facts

The defendant in Civil Suit No. 215 of 2016 sought to introduce as evidence the judgment and record of proceedings from Civil Suit No. 81/2010, which had been heard at Makindye Court. That earlier suit had been dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. The defendant argued that the judgment and proceedings were admissible under the Evidence Act as certified judicial records, and that the testimony of the 1st Plaintiff in the lower court was relevant to the present case. The plaintiffs raised a preliminary objection contending that documents arising from proceedings conducted by a court without jurisdiction are a nullity and cannot be admitted as evidence.

Issues

  1. Whether the judgment and record of proceedings from Civil Suit No. 81/2010 at Makindye Court, which was dismissed for lack of jurisdiction, are admissible as evidence in the High Court.
  2. Whether evidence given in proceedings conducted by a court without jurisdiction can be admitted in subsequent proceedings before a court with proper jurisdiction.

Orders

  • Preliminary objection upheld.
  • Judgment and record of proceedings in Civil Suit No. 81/2010 at Makindye Court declared inadmissible.
  • Evidence of the 1st Plaintiff from Civil Suit No. 81/2010 ruled inadmissible.
  • 1st Plaintiff to re-testify before the High Court for evidence to be admitted.

Rules and key headnotes

Civil Procedure — Jurisdiction — Proceedings Without Jurisdiction — Effect of Nullity
Proceedings conducted by a court without jurisdiction are a nullity ab initio, and any judgment or order arising from such proceedings is also void and of no legal effect.
Evidence — Admissibility — Judicial Records — Records from Proceedings Without Jurisdiction
A judgment and record of proceedings from a court that lacked jurisdiction cannot be admitted as evidence in subsequent proceedings, notwithstanding that they constitute judicial records under the Evidence Act, because they arise from void proceedings.
Evidence — Admissibility — Testimony from Void Proceedings
Testimony given in court proceedings that are subsequently declared void for want of jurisdiction forms part of those proceedings and is itself rendered void and inadmissible in later proceedings; the witness must give fresh evidence before the court with proper jurisdiction.
Civil Procedure — Preliminary Objections — Points of Law — Timing and Discretion
Points of law, including issues of jurisdiction, may be raised at any stage of proceedings whether or not pleaded, and once raised the court has discretion to dispose of the preliminary objection either at or after the hearing, depending on the circumstances of the case.

Legislation cited (5)

Cases cited (8)

  • Mujub Juma v Adam Musa and Others (Civil Appeal No. 53 of 2015)
  • Kaggwa Mitched v Olal Mark and 6 Others (Civil Appeal No. 10 of 2017)
  • Desai v Warsama (1967) EA 351
  • Mathias Lwanga Kaganda v Uganda Electricity Board (Civil Suit No. 124 of 2003)
  • Uganda Telecom Ltd v Zte Corporation (Civil Appeal No. 3 of 2017)
  • Bithum Charles v Adonge Sally (Civil Appeal No. 20 of 2015)
  • Karoli Mubiru and 21 Others v Edmond Kayiwa [1979] HCB 212
  • Peter Mugoya v James Gidudu and Another [1991] HCB 63

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Regina_Benham_and_6_Others_v_Lwaasa_(Civil_Suit_No._215_of_2016)_[2021]_UGHCLD_157_(29_October_2021)
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.