Bowmaker (CA) (Pvt) LTD v Ernest Kennie Samkange ((1963-1964) Z and NRLR 20) [1964] ZMHCNR 2 (8 January 1964)

BOWMAKER (CA) (Pvt) LTD v ERNEST KENNIE SAMKANGE (1963 - 1964) Z and NRLR 20 1963 - 1964 Z and NRLR p20 [Before the Honourable the Chief Jus�ce, Sir Diarmaid CONROY on the 8th January, 1964.] Flynote Judgment summons on judgment obtained in the High Court - applica�on to issue out of Subordinate Court, class II, a�er transfer - jurisdic�on of class II court - mater reserved for considera�on by the High Court - Subordinate Courts Ordinance Cap. 4, sec�ons 19 (3), 20 and 29 - High Court Ordinance, Cap. 3, sec�on 24 (2) and (3). Headnote The plain�ffs obtained judgment in the High Court against the defendant in the sum of £288 18s. 3d. The mater was subsequently transferred to the court of the Resident Magistrate, Broken Hill, in terms of sec�on 24 (2) of the High Court Ordinance, Cap. 3. At a later date the resident magistrate, Broken Hill, transferred the mater to the court of the Resident Magistrate, Choma, in terms of sec�on 26A of the Subordinate Courts Ordinance, Cap. 4. The resident magistrate's court at Choma had by then been replaced by a subordinate court of the second class. On an applica�on to the magistrate of the subordinate court, class II, to issue a judgment summons in the mater, the magistrate declined to do so, for want of jurisdic�on. On the mater being referred to the High Court in terms of sec�on 29 of the Subordinate Courts Ordinance, Cap. 4 - Held: (a) The magistrate was correct in declining to issue the judgment summons for want of jurisdic�on. (b) The amount of money, exclusive of costs, for which a judgment summons may be issued in a subordinate court of the second class is £100. (c) Although judgment was obtained in the High Court, and the mater was subsequently transferred to the subordinate court of the second class, this could not enlarge the subordinate court's Jurisdic�on - see sec�on 24 (3) of the High Court Ordinance, Cap. 3. (d) The power conferred upon courts of senior resident magistrates and resident magistrates to enforce judgments of the High Court for sums outside the normal jurisdic�on of the lower courts, has no applica�on to subordinate courts other than those of senior resident magistrates and resident magistrates. (e) The difficulty in the par�cular case could be overcome by increasing the jurisdic�on of the magistrate presiding over the subordinate court of the second class, in terms of sec�on 23 of the Subordinate Courts Ordinance, Cap. 4. Judgment Conroy CJ: The subordinate court of the second class at Choma has reserved for considera�on by the High Court, under sec�on 29 of the Subordinate Courts Ordinance, the ques�on of whether that subordinate court has jurisdic�on to issue and hear a judgment summons in this case. The mater arises in the following way: 1963 - 1964 Z and NRLR p21 CONROY CJ On 5th October, 1961, the plain�ffs issued a writ for £288 18s. 3d. in the Kitwe District Registry of the High Court. On 4th January, 1962, they obtained judgment by default. On 13th April, 1962, the mater was transferred by the order of Mr. Jus�ce Picket from the High Court to the court of the Resident Magistrate, Broken Hill, by virtue of sec�on 24 (2) of the High Court Ordinance. On 23rd September, 1963, the Resident Magistrate, Broken Hill, ac�ng under sec�on 26A of the Subordinate Courts Ordinance, transferred the mater to the court of the Resident Magistrate, Choma. By this date the Resident Magistrate at Choma had been replaced by a class II magistrate. The plain�ffs applied to the class II magistrate at Choma to issue a judgment summons. He declined, on the ground that his civil jurisdic�on was limited to causes and maters in which the value of the damage claimed was not more than £100, under sec�on 20 of the Subordinate Courts Ordinance. The plain�ffs contended that he had got jurisdic�on, and cited as authority a case in the Ndola District Registry. They drew aten�on to a leter of 12th March, 1963, from the Assistant Registrar at Ndola, which reads as follows: "The mater has again been considered by the learned judge who made the order of transfer to your court, and you are advised that whilst the sum originally is beyond the jurisdic�on of a magistrate, class II, as far as giving judgment of an order made by the High Court, such a magistrate does have jurisdic�on in terms of Sec�on 24 (2) Cap. 3." I agree with the view of the magistrate, class II, at Choma, that he had no jurisdic�on to deal with this mater, for the following reasons. Sec�on 20 of the Subordinate Courts Ordinance specifically limits the jurisdic�on of a subordinate court of the second class to causes and maters in which the value of the damages claimed is not more than £100. In this case the plain�ffs are seeking to recover over £280. I find great difficulty in understanding the statement of law contained in the assistant registrar's leter of 12th March, 1963. The only meaning I can atach to that statement is that where a judge transfers a High Court judgment to a subordinate court for enforcement, the subordinate court may enforce that judgment even though it is for a sum of money which exceeds the financial limits of the jurisdic�on of the subordinate court, because the order was made under sec�on 24 (2). But this is plainly wrong, because sec�on 24 (3) in terms provides that no such transfer shall be deemed to enlarge the limits set upon the civil jurisdic�on of subordinate courts by the provisions of Part III of the Subordinate Courts Ordinance, or to confer any jurisdic�on in excess thereof. The limit set by Part III on a subordinate court, class II, is £100. Sec�on 19 (3) of the Subordinate Courts Ordinance is also relevant. It provides that in addi�on to the civil jurisdic�on conferred on the courts of senior resident magistrates, and on the courts of resident magistrates, such courts " shall have jurisdic�on to enforce any judgment or order of the High Court for the payment of any money to a person where such judgment or order has been transferred by the High Court to such magistrate's court as if it were a judgment of such magistrate's court . . .". If the view atributed to the learned judge in the assistant registrar's leter were correct, there would be no need for sec�on 19 (3). 1963 - 1964 Z and NRLR p22 CONROY CJ All civil causes and maters in dependence before the court of the Resident Magistrate, Choma, have been transferred to the subordinate court of the second class magistrate, Choma, by virtue of an omnibus order which I made in exercise of the powers conferred upon me by sec�ons 24 (2) and 26 of the High Court Ordinance. That order increased the jurisdic�on of that second class court to the extent that it became the same as the jurisdic�on given to a subordinate court of the first class by sec�on 19 (1) of the Subordinate Courts Ordinance. Therefore this case has been transferred to the court of the second class, Choma, but that court has no jurisdic�on to deal with it, as the amount in issue exceeds £200. I accordingly order, in exercise of the powers conferred upon me by sec�on 23 of the Subordinate Courts Ordinance that the jurisdic�on of Mr. Bowcock, the magistrate presiding over the subordinate court of the second class at Choma, shall be and is hereby increased so that he has the same jurisdic�on to deal with and dispose of this mater as though he were a resident magistrate and enjoyed jurisdic�on so to do by virtue of the provisions of sec�on 19 (3) of the Subordinate Courts Ordinance.