Kabyanga Rogers v Mukiibi Bashir and Muwonge Abbey (Revision Cause No. 14 of 2023) [2025] UGHCLD 93 (17 June 2025)

### **THE REPUBLIC OF UGANDA**

### **IN THE HIGH COURT OF UGANDA AT KAMPALA**

### **LAND DIVISION**

### **REVISION CAUSE NO.14 OF 2023**

### **Arising from Misc. Application No.37 of 2022**

**Also arising from Civil Suit No. 69 of 2015**

**KABYANGA ROGERS …………… APPLICANT**

**VERSUS**

### **1. MUKIIBI BASHIR**

**2. MUWONGE ABBEY …………… RESPONDENTS**

### **BEFORE HON. LADY JUSTICE FLAVIA NASSUNA MATOVU**

### **RULING**

1. This application was brought under the provisions of S. 17 of the Judicature Act, S. 83 & S. 98 of the Civil Procedure Act. It was seeking for orders that the consent judgment that was executed by the parties on 3rd September 2019 in respect of Mengo Civil Suit. No. 69 of 2015 and sealed by the Chief Magistrate at Mengo Chief Magistrate's court be revised and set aside; that the ruling in M/A 37 of 2022 arising out of the said suit be set aside and that costs of the application be provided for. It was brought by notice of motion which was supported by an affidavit that was sworn by the applicant. Grounds of the application were laid in the notice of motion and affidavit in support. Briefly the grounds were that;

- a) The Chief magistrate at Mengo exercised jurisdiction not vested in him when he entertained and disposed of a matter beyond his pecuniary jurisdiction and for that reason the said judgment should be set aside. - 2. The 2nd respondent filed an affidavit in reply by which he called upon court to dismiss the application with costs. Briefly he stated that; - a) The parties willingly executed the said consent judgment with involvement of the parties themselves and their respective advocates. - b) The said consent was duly and lawfully entered by the court upon agreement by all parties. - c) The application has been brought three years after the consent judgment had been executed which was unreasonable delay on the part of the applicant. - d) The application was merely intended to frustrate the execution of the consent judgment that had been commenced in the lower court. - 3. The 1st respondent did not file any affidavit in reply. - 4. The applicant was represented byM/s Tropical Law Advocates while the respondents were represented by M/s Eric- Kiingi & Co. Advocates.

### **5. ISSUE**

**Whether the consent judgment that was executed by the parties in respect of Civil Suit No.69 of 2015 and endorsed by the Chief Magistrate at Mengo on 3 rd September 2019 should be set aside.**

### **6. SUBMISSIONS**

- a) Counsel for the applicant filed written submissions which I carefully studied. Briefly he submitted that the chief magistrate entertained a matter beyond his pecuniary jurisdiction and for that reason the proceedings were a nullity and should be set aside. He submitted that under the Magistrate's courts Act, the pecuniary jurisdiction of a Chief Magistrate is 50 million and for that reason the consent judgment that was entered by the Chief Magistrate in the sum of 80 million was null and void. Further that under S.83 of the Civil Procedure Rules, High court has powers to revise and set aside the said judgment. He cited several authorities in support of his submissions which I carefully studied. - b) Counsel for the respondents on the other had did not file any submissions.

# **7. DECISION OF COURT.**

After carefully studying the entire record of proceedings, the submission of counsel for the applicant plus the relevant law, I have established as follows:

- a) The plaintiff /2nd respondent filed Mengo Civil suit against the applicant and 1st respondent by which he stated interalia that the value of subject matter was 50 million. In the written statement of defence, the applicant set up a counter claim by which he claimed interalia compensation of 100 million. - b) The parties then executed a consent judgment in respect of same suit which was endorsed by the Chief Magistrate on the same day. In the said consent judgment, it was agreed interalia that the 1st defendant would pay 80 million to the 2nd defendant. - *c)* Jurisdiction is a creature of statute and no court can exercise jurisdiction not vested in it. S. 4 of the Civil Procedure Act provides;

*" except in so far as is otherwise provided nothing in the Act, shall operate to give any court jurisdiction over suits the amount or value of the subject matter of which exceeds the pecuniary limits if any, of its ordinary jurisdiction"*

*d) S.206 of the Magistrate's courts Act further provides that in determination of matters of a civil nature, the chief magistrate shall have jurisdiction where the value of the subject matter in dispute does not exceed 50 million.* In the instant case it is clear that the value of the subject matter was beyond 50 million and indeed the terms of the consent judgment specifically indicated that one of the parties would pay 80 million. Suffice to note that any orders issued or decisions made by a court without jurisdiction are

void and of no legal consequence**. (See Desai vs, Warsama (1967) E. A 351)**

e) Under S. 83 of the Civil Procedure Act, the High court has powers to revise orders issued in a magistrate's court in which it appears that the court exercised a jurisdiction not vested in it in law.

In the instant case whereas it is true the parties agreed on the terms indicated in the consent judgment, the terms indicated in the said consent judgment were beyond jurisdiction of a Chief magistrate. As already stated above orders issued by a court without jurisdiction are a nullity and of no legal consequence.

- f) For all the reasons advanced above the consent judgment that was endorsed by the Chief magistrate in respect of Mengo Civil Suit No. 69 of 2015 plus all subsequent proceedings and orders are hereby set aside. The case file should accordingly be transferred to High Court Land Division for further and better management. - g) Since all parties to this application actively participated in the erroneous proceedings in the lower court, each party should meet their costs for this application.

## **8. FINAL ORDERS.**

This application is hereby granted as follows:

a) The consent judgment that was executed by the parties in Mengo Civil Suit No.69 of 2015 and endorsed by court on 3rd September 2019 is hereby set aside.

- b) The ruling in Miscellaneous Application No.37 of 2022 arising out of Mengo Civil Suit No. 60 of 2015 is also hereby set aside. - c) Mengo Civil Suit No. 69 of 2015 should be transferred to High Court Land division for further management. - d) Each party shall meet their costs for this application.

#### **DATED at Kampala this 17th day of June 2025**

**JUDGE.**