Wakilii

Sajjabi & 4 Ors v Isazakulya (H.C.C.A No. 16 of 1993)

High Court · [1995] UGHCLD 1 · 1995 Appeal Allowed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Appeal from Chief Magistrate's decision in appellate jurisdiction following decisions in RC courts
Decision
Matter remitted for re-trial by competent magistrate; parties to maintain status quo ante pending re-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

The High Court allowed the appeal on grounds of material procedural irregularities committed by the Chief Magistrate. The Chief Magistrate improperly reviewed decisions of all three RC courts when the appeal was specifically against the RCIII decision, and irregularly relied on findings of a Grade II Magistrate who visited the locus in quo and conducted a hearing without following proper rules for taking fresh evidence on appeal. The matter was remitted for re-trial by a competent magistrate.

Outcome

Matter remitted for re-trial by competent magistrate; parties to maintain status quo ante pending re-trial

Facts

The respondent brought a land dispute claim before RC1 Budime court and lost. He appealed successively to RCII Budima and RCIII Butagaya, losing at each level. On appeal to the Chief Magistrate's court in its appellate jurisdiction, the Chief Magistrate decided in the respondent's favour. The five appellants then appealed to the High Court. The evidence in all RC courts was not properly recorded nor taken on oath, making it difficult for appellate courts to follow. The Chief Magistrate had sent a Grade II Magistrate to visit the locus in quo and draw a sketch plan; however, the Grade II Magistrate conducted another hearing at the locus in addition to drawing the plan.

Issues

  1. Whether the learned Chief Magistrate erred in failing to sufficiently consider all the evidence on record.
  2. Whether the learned Chief Magistrate erred in finding for the respondent when the claim was barred by the Limitation Act.
  3. Whether the procedure adopted by the Chief Magistrate in sending a Grade II Magistrate to visit the locus in quo was proper in appellate proceedings.

Orders

  • Appeal allowed.
  • Each party to bear own costs.
  • Case to be re-tried by another court of competent jurisdiction, preferably Magistrate Grade II but not any of the RC courts.
  • Until re-trial, parties to maintain positions occupied before suit was instituted in RCI court.

Rules and key headnotes

Civil Procedure — Appellate Procedure — Scope of Appeal from Subordinate Courts
When an appeal is specifically against the decision of a particular court in a chain of appeals, it is irregular for the appellate court to review decisions of other courts not subject to the appeal.
Civil Procedure — Fresh Evidence on Appeal — Procedural Requirements
Where a court hearing an appeal proposes to take fresh evidence, it must follow the rules prescribed under section 81(1)(d) of the Civil Procedure Act and Order 39 rules 22-23 of the Civil Procedure Rules, and the court must be moved by one of the parties to take such additional evidence.
Civil Procedure — Appellate Jurisdiction — Improper Procedure in Taking Evidence
It is irregular for an appellate court to send another judicial officer to visit the locus in quo and conduct a hearing in the guise of drawing a sketch plan, where the court has not been properly moved to take fresh evidence and where the procedure for taking additional evidence on appeal has not been followed.

Legislation cited (4)

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Sajjabi & 4 Ors v Isazakulya (H.C.C.A No. 16 of 1993) [1995] UGHCLD 1 (29 March 1995)
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.