Finish Refgee Council v Kasangaki (Civil Revision 1 of 2025) [2025] UGHC 97 (3 February 2025)

# THE REPUBLIC OF UGANDA IN THE HIGH COURT OF UGANDA HOLDEN AT HOIMA CIVIL REVISION CAUSE NO.0001 OF 2025

(Formerly MSD Revision Cause No. 0073 of 2021) (*Arising from Chief Magistrate's Court Hoima, C. S. No.11 of 2021*)

#### FINNISH REFUGEE COUNCIL::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::

#### **VERSUS**

#### ADEN KASANGAKI::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::

BEFORE: HON. JUSTICE BYARUHANGA JESSE RUGYEMA

### **RULING**

- The Applicant seeks for orders that: $[1]$ - The ruling and orders of the learned trial Magistrate in Chief $(a)$ Magistrate's Court **C. S. No. 11 of 2021** dismissing the Applicant's preliminary objections that the trial Court lacked jurisdiction to adjudicate the main suit and ordering the Applicant to pay costs be revised and set aside. - This Honourable court be pleased to order that **C. S. No. 11 of** $(b)$ **2021** be dismissed with costs for want of jurisdiction. - That costs of the application be provided for. $(c)$ - $[2]$ The grounds upon which this application is premised are set out in the affidavit in support of the application deposed by **Tarja** Saarela Kaonga, the Country Director of the Applicant and opposed by the affidavit in reply deposed by the Respondent, Aden Kasangaki.

## **Background:**

$[3]$ The Respondent filed C. S. No. 11 of 2021 against the Applicant for breach an employment contract, workmen's compensation, special, general and punitive damages arising from injuries sustained while he was under the Applicant's employment.

1 | Page

- The Applicant in its Written State of Defence (WSD) intimated inter $[4]$ alia, that the Respondent/Plaintiff's claim was incompetently before the Court and was liable to be summarily dismissed because the court lacked the requisite jurisdiction to adjudicate the claims in the Respondent/Plaintiff's suit. - Indeed at the hearing of the suit, Counsel for the Applicant raised $[5]$ a preliminary objection to the effect that the court lacked jurisdiction in the matter and that the suit was incompetently filed in the court because the matter was a preserve of the Industrial Court. - The trial Magistrate heard the preliminary objection but dismissed $[6]$ the preliminary objection and allowed the Respondent's matter to be adjudicated upon hence this application.

#### **Issues for determination:** $[7]$

- Whether the present civil revision application is properly $(1)$ before this court. - had Magistrate's Court $(2)$ Whether the Hoima Chief jurisdiction to hear the suit. - What remedies are available to the parties. $(3)$

# Issue No.1: Whether the present civil revision application is properly before this court.

- Under **S.83 PCA**, this court is empowered to make any order as may $[8]$ be necessary of any case which has been determined by any Magistrate's Court for purposes of correction or improvement, legality or impropriety of any finding. In exercising revision powers, the High Court considers cases where the Magistrate; - exercised a jurisdiction not vested in law. - failed to exercise a jurisdiction so vested; or $\overline{a}$ - acted in the exercise of its jurisdiction illegally or with material irregularity or injustice, see **Tibaingana Godfrey vs** Kabwenda, H. C. Civil Revision NO. 006 of 2012.

- The power of revision is a wide power exercisable in any $[9]$ proceedings in which it appears that an error material to the merits of the case involving a miscarriage of justice occurred, **Connect** Financial Services Ltd Vs Middle North Cooperative Union Ltd. Civil Revision No. 065 of 2017. - [10] As per Matemba vs Yamulinga [1968] E. A 643, an application for revision can only lie only on the ground of jurisdiction and the High Court in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction is not a court of appeal on a question of law or fact. The provision applies to jurisdiction alone, the irregular exercise of or non-exercise of it or the illegal assumption of it. - [11] This court will not interfere under this section merely because the court below came to an erroneous decision on a question of fact or law. This court cannot in its revisional jurisdiction consider the merits of the case however erroneous the decision of the court below is on an issue of law or of fact, see Connect Financial Services Ltd Vs Middle North Cooperative Union (supra). - [12] In the instant case, a preliminary objection was raised by the Applicant about the jurisdiction of the Chief Magistrate's Court over the matter. The Applicant was accordingly overruled. I find that whether or not the learned Chief Magistrate in exercising his jurisdiction made a wrong conclusion or decision cannot be a subject of revision under S. 83 CPA, but an appeal from his decision. In this case, the Applicant appear to had been dissatisfied with the ruling of the learned trial Chief Magistrate when he overruled her preliminary objection. The trial Chief Magistrate in this case had the jurisdiction to entertain the preliminary objection raised which he did and overruled. There is nothing illegal about the ruling. The dissatisfied Applicant had the only option to appeal against the trial Magistrate's order. - [13] As a result of the above, I find that this present Civil Revision application is not properly before this court. It is in the premises accordingly dismissed with costs to the Respondent. The trial

$3$ | Page

Chief Magistrate is directed to expeditiously hear and conclude the suit.

Dated at Hoima this $3^{rd}$ day of February, 2025.

. . . . . . Byaruhanga Jesse Rugyema<br>JUDGE