Muteteri v Bamudali (Civil Misc. Application No. 138 of 2011) [2012] UGHC 419 (24 February 2012)

## THE REPUBLIC OF UGAN IN THE HIGH COURT OF UGANDA AT MASAK CIVIL MISC. APPLICATION NO. 138 OF 2011

MUTETERI FEIBI :::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::

## VERSUS

BAMUDALI CHARLES ::::::::::::::::::::::: **RESPONDENT**

BEFORE: HON. JUSTICE V. F. MUSOKE-KIBUUKA

## REVISIONAL ORDER

The Applicant, Mr. Muteteri Feibi, sought, through Civil Application No. 138, 2011, a revisional order of the judgment and order issued by an LC1 court, at Kyalulangira against him in Civil Suit No. 40 of 2009. He prayed that the execution done in Civil Misc. Appl. No. 109 of 2010 be set aside.

When the parties came before court on 08.02.2012, Nyanzi Mathias who represented the $Mr.$ both respondent and Mr. Kikirengoma who was holding brief for Mr. Muhwezi counsel for the applicant, agreed that a revisional order be issued by court because both were of the view that the LC1 court at Kyalulangira village did not possess competent jurisdiction to

HIGH COURT OF

$L'$

civil suit No. 40 of 2009 and to issue the orders it did issue. '

**4**

**3**

**3**

**3**

**3**

**3**

**3**

**3**

**P**

**3**

**3**

**3**

**3**

nder section 83 (a), of the Civil Procedure Act, a evisional order may issue where the lower court exercised jurisdiction not vested in it. The argument m the instance case is that the lower court did not have competent jurisdiction to entertain, civil suit-No.- 40 of 2009.

Although section 83 speaks of decisions of Magistrate's courts, this court thinks that section 32 of the Executive Committees (Judicial Powers) Act, read together with section 17 of the Judicature Act, does bring decisions of the LC courts under the ambit of Section 83, of the Civil Procedure Act.

Although, in the instate case, both Counsel were in agreement that a revisional order be issued upon the ground of lack of competent jurisdiction, none of them specifically pointed to that lack ofjurisdiction.

**UGANDA** <sup>3</sup> true copy **KA**

In Court's view, there does not appear to have been any lack nf <sup>n</sup> ompetent jurisdiction in this matter. The °f action filed by the respondent in the LC1 Urf at Kyalulangira was *trespass.* That can clearly read in the LC1 court's judgment which states, in Paragraph one, *"This matter was brought before Bamudali Charles claiming that —Faibi unlawfully entered upon his —and illegally settled thereon"* Under part2, of the first schedule to the Executive Committees (Judicial Powers) Act, the LC Courts are vested with jurisdiction to entertain civil cases in which the cause of action is *trespass.* It would appear to court, therefore, that the ground of lack of competent jurisdiction as the basis for the issuance of a revisional order in this case would not be wellfounded because clearly the LC1 court was vested with competent jurisdiction. The orders which that court made and their subsequent execution cannot be faulted upon the ground of lack of competent jurisdiction, in the view of the court.

high counr of <sup>u</sup>'-a'.<sup>t</sup>/<sup>i</sup>

Civil application No. 138, of 2011, for the reasons set out above, is dismissed, the agreement by both The counsel that it be allowed notwithstanding. execution carried out is upheld. Costs are awarded to the respondent.

$C \subseteq \mathbb{R}^{n-1}$

this is a true copy

equity Registrat

V. F. Musoke-Kibuuka (Judge) HIGH-COURT

24/02/2012

$\mathbf{1} - \mathbf{1} - \mathbf{1} - \mathbf{1} - \mathbf{1} - \mathbf{1} - \mathbf{1} - \mathbf{1} - \mathbf{1} - \mathbf{1} - \mathbf{1} - \mathbf{1} - \mathbf{1} - \mathbf{1} - \mathbf{1} - \mathbf{1} - \mathbf{1} - \mathbf{1} - \mathbf{1} - \mathbf{1} - \mathbf{1} - \mathbf{1} - \mathbf{1} - \mathbf{1} - \mathbf{1} - \mathbf{1} - \mathbf{1} - \mathbf{1} - \mathbf{1} - \mathbf{1} - \mathbf{1} - \mathbf$

$\overline{4}$

$\cdot$ $\cdot$