War Child Canada v Siriba (Civil Revision 3 of 2023) [2024] UGHC 535 (12 June 2024)

## THE REPUBLIC OF UGANDA

# IN THE HIGH COURT OF UGANDA AT ARUA

# CIVIL REVISION NO. 0003 OF 2023

# (Arising from Moyo Chief Magistrates Court Civil Suit No. 006 of 2022)

#### WAR CHILD CANADA .................................. 10

### **VERSUS**

SIRIBA MOSES (T/A Siriba Business Centre)::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::

### BEFORE HON. JUSTICE COLLINS ACELLAM

#### 15

$\tilde{\bullet}$

### **RULING**

### **Brief Introduction**

This is an Application in which the Applicant seeks the exercise of this court's revisionary powers by way of Motion under Sections 83 and 98 of the Civil Procedure Act Cap 71 and Order 52 Rules 1, 2 & 3 of the Civil Procedure Rules S. I 71-1 where the Applicant prays that the Judgment

, decree and orders given by the Magistrate Grade 1 of Moyo Grade 1 Magistrate Court , His 20 Worship Padoko Gerald delivered on the 31st March, 2023 in Civil Suit No. 006 of 2022 be revised, declared a nullity and set aside with costs.

### Background

The facts as discernible from the motion, the affidavits on record and attachments thereto, are that on the 25<sup>th</sup> January, 2022, the Respondent instituted Civil Suit No. 006 of 2022 in the $25$ Chief Magistrate Court of Moyo against the Applicant for recovery of the sum of UGX. 17, 560,000/= arising from a purported supply of stationaries. The Applicant in their WSD denied the indebtedness to the Respondent, upon a successful litigation, the lower court found it in Favor of the Respondent and it ordered for payment of his retainer Capital of worth $\mathbf{S}^{\bullet}$ 17,560,000/= and awarded to respondent general damage of Ugx. 3,000,000/= and costs not yet 30 filed for taxation.

Being Dissatisfied with the above decision, the Applicant brought this application for Revision on grounds that the learned Grade 1 Magistrate awarded the Respondent a total /aggregate decretal sum of UGX. 20,650,000 (exclusive of interest) which is over and above his pecuniary limit of UGX.20,000,000/= hence failed to exercise a jurisdiction so vested in him by law and as a result, acted illegally or with material irregularity or injustice.

# Grounds on which this Application is based.

The gravamen of this complain is premised on the basis that the learned Grade One Trial Magistrate erred in law and fact in entertaining the suit where he had reason to believe that if it were successful, the awards he could make would exceed his pecuniary jurisdiction.

The other ground is that the Magistrate awarded the respondent a total /aggregate decretal sum of UGX. 20, 650,000/= (exclusive of interest) which is over and above his pecuniary limit of

$\mathbf{1}$

$\mathsf{S}$

Ugx. 20,000,000/= thus the subsequent Civil Suit No. 006 of 2022 giving rise to the impugned judgment was contended an illegality cocked with material irregularity or injustice.

45 The Applicant averred that failing to exercise jurisdiction so vested in him by law and or by exercising his jurisdiction illegally or with material irregularity, the whole decision and orders of the learned Grade One Trial Magistrate are a nullity. The Applicant feels aggrieved and contend that its only fair and just that this Application be allowed and the whole decision and orders of the learned Grade One Trial Magistrate be set aside.

#### 50 Grounds in Opposition

On factual matters, the Respondent deposed that by way of local purchase Order ordered for stationaries from his stationary shop on credit sum of 17,650,000/= and this was his retainer money but not court award. That the learned Magistrate awarded general damages of 3,000,000/= which is within the jurisdiction of 20,000,000/= as provided for under Section 207 (1) (b) of the MCA therefore the issue of monetary jurisdiction has never been interfered with.

The Respondent further contends that Counsel for the Applicant wrongly interpreted the judgement in Civil Suit No. 006/2023 to his client as it was wrong for counsel for the Applicant to add retainer capital of 17,560,000 to court award of Ugx. 3,000,000/= to make 20, 560,000/= for a wrong purpose of impeaching the jurisdiction of Grade 1.

#### 60 Representation

Libra Advocates represented the Applicant while Madira & Co. Advocates represented the Respondent. Both parties were present in court during the hearing. Parties requested and court allowed them to file written submissions. I have considered the submissions and I must applaud the Advocates for their sound arguments.

#### 65 **ISSUES**

Having perused the motion and the affidavits on record as well as submissions, two issues arise for resolution namely;

- 1. Whether the case is proper for Revision? - 2. Whether there any available remedies

#### 70 Resolution

Issue 1 and 2 shall be resolved together.

# Position of the law.

Section 83 of the Civil Procedure Act Cap 71 provides for the revisionary powers of the High Court. Under section, the High Court may call for the record of any case which has been determined under the Civil Procedure Act by any Magistrate Court and may revise it, and may make such order as it thinks fit.

The High court may, therefore exercise its revisionary powers only in any of the three circumstances names;

# a) If it appears that the Magistrate's court has exercised a jurisdiction not vested in it in law.

b) Failed to exercise a Jurisdiction so vested

# c) Acted in the exercise of its jurisdiction illegally or with material irregularity or *injustice.*

Section 83 of the CPA applies to jurisdiction alone. That is the irregular exercise or non-exercise of it or the illegal assumption of it. See Matembe Vs Yamulinga (19680) EA 643 85

In the instant case, the main contention as earlier noted is rooted on section 83 (a) of the CPA that the learned Magistrate Grade 1 exercised Jurisdiction not vested in it in law and as a result gave an award above the pecuniary jurisdiction of the trial court. The Applicant brought this application under section 83 of the CPA.

- 90 Therefore, whereas the body of the motion and the affidavit and submission also canvas matters connected to irregular and illegal exercise of jurisdiction, thus within the purview of section 83 (c) of the CPA, the Applicant, with respect didn't purport to tread that road in the alternative. The gist of the Applicant's complaint is based on the trial magistrate's lack of pecuniary jurisdiction to present the award beyond its powers. - Lack of Jurisdiction nullifies every done in purported exercise of powers which didn't in the first 95 place exist.

The Applicant strenuously argued that the trial court had no pecuniary jurisdiction because the Magistrate 1 awarded the Respondent an aggregate / total decretal sum of UGX. 20, 650,000/= which is over and above his pecuniary limit of UGX. 20,000,000/= and the entire decision and awards of court ought to be set aside

Counsel for the Applicant submits that in establishing pecuniary jurisdiction, the court considers the aggregate / total claims either in the plaint or the judgment as the courts do not sever claims in the plaint or awards in the judgment like the Respondent's counsel seems to suggest.

- $105.$ In response, counsel for the Respondent refuses to ponder in such averments and goes ahead to submit that it was wrong for the Applicant to add retainer capital of 17,560,000/= to the general damages of 3,000,000/= to wrongly get a sum of UGX. 20,560,000/= in order to falsely impeach a clear judgment on grounds of jurisdiction. - Counsel adds that the Magistrate Grade 1 only awarded general damages of UGX. 3,000,000/= 110 to the Respondent but not UGX. 20,560,000/= and that counsel wrongly interpreted these facts and ended up wrongly filing an application on baseless grounds.

I have heard from both sides and hereby pin my decision in respect of the same.

In the persuasive dicta in Owners of Motor Vessel Lillian "s" v. Caltex Oil Kenya Limited [1989] KLR 1 in which Nyarangi JA, citing Words and Phrases Legally Defined vol. 3 I-N page 13 observed thus:

By jurisdiction, is meant the authority which a court has to decide matters that are before it or take cognizance of matters presented in a formal way for its decision. The limits of this authority are imposed by statute, charter or commission under which the court is constituted and may be extended or restricted by the like means. If no restriction or limit is imposed the jurisdiction is

120 said to be unlimited. A limitation may be either as to the kind and nature of the actions and matters which the particular court has cognizance or as to the area over which the jurisdiction shall extend, or it may partake both these characteristics. If the jurisdiction of an inferior court or tribunal (including an arbitrator) depends on the existence of a particular state of facts, the

court or tribunal must inquire into the existence of the facts in order to decide whether it had jurisdiction; but, except where the court or tribunal has been given power to determine 125 conclusively whether the facts exist. Where the court takes it upon itself to exercise a jurisdiction which it does not possess, its decision amounts to nothing. Jurisdiction must be acquired before judgment is given.

It was further held that: Jurisdiction is everything without it; a court has no power to make one more step. Where a court has no jurisdiction there would be no basis for continuation of 130 proceedings pending other evidence. A court of law downs its tools in respect of the matter before it the moment it holds the opinion that it is without jurisdiction.

Jurisdiction therefore is the power or authority vested in court to "decide matters that are before it" or "to take cognisance of matters in a formal way for its decision." One cannot speak of jurisdiction without the power or authority to make a decision on the merits. (See Uganda v Wadri& 31 Ors (Criminal Revision 2 of 2018) [2018]10 UGHCCRD 151 (20 August 2018).

Jurisdiction in civil proceedings in Uganda is in two broad categories that geographical and pecuniary jurisdiction.

In light of the instant fact, it was contended that the trial court lacked the requisite pecuniary 140 jurisdiction on the basis that the amounts awarded by court were above the pecuniary limits of a Magistrate Grade 1 of UGX 20,000,000/=

I have perused the plaint and found that the claim by the Respondent was for breach of contract and the retainer sum was UGX 17, 560, 000/=. The plaintiff also asked for general damages, special damages, interest on court award at 18% from the date of filling till payment and costs of the suit.

# Therefore, a quick glance at the contract sums and the relief claimed at the time fell well within the pecuniary limits of the Grade 1 Magistrate.

The fundamental follow up question would be whether or not a Grade 1 Magistrate has the competence to grant reliefs beyond his or her pecuniary limit. Kiryabwire J (as he then was) in

150 National Medical Stores v Penguines Ltd (HCT-00-CC-CA 29 of 2010) [2012] UG Comm C 39 (3 May 2012) cited with approval the dicta of the Court of Appeal in Mubiru & others $V$

Kayiwa (1979) HCB 212 CA where the court of appeal observed thus; "an order made without $\bullet$ jurisdiction is a nullity". In the instant case, since the order of the trial magistrate awarding general damages in the sum of Ushs 2, 400,000/= to the plaintiff was made without appropriate 155 jurisdiction. It was a nullity ab-initio.".

Therefore, Magistrate's Courts are required to make awards that fall within their pecuniary limits save for interest. However, an award of general and special damages must be within the pecuniary jurisdiction of the trial Court. Any award beyond what is provided for under the law renders the whole decision a nullity for want of jurisdiction

160 In this case, the plaintiff was awarded a sum of shs 17,650,000/= being the contract sum. He was further awarded general damages of shs 3,000,000/=. Interest of 15% p.a on the contract or retainer sum from the date of filing till payment in full and interest of 10% p.a on the general damages from the date of judgment till payment in full.

The special damages was denied as the plaintiff failed to prove the same.

$\overline{4}$

As earlier stated, Magistrate's Courts are required to make awards that fall within their pecuniary 165. limits save for interest. Interests are not considered in the computation of the pecuniary jurisdiction.

This means that the trial magistrate only awarded UGX. 3,000,000/= and imposed an interest of 10% p.a on the general damages.

In conclusion, the learned Magistrate Grade 1 exercised correctly jurisdiction vested in him. I 170 have therefore found nothing to warrant the exercise of my revisionary discretion, as there is nothing to correct or improve from the record. I find the award of the trial court regular, legal and correct. The Judgment and decree were rendered in the exercise of the court's jurisdiction which the learned Trial Magistrate Grade 1 had. Consequently, the Application stands dismissed with costs to the Respondent. 175

I so order.

$12<sup>m</sup>$ Fune 2024. Delivered at Arua this..

ACELLAM

**JUDGE**

$\mathsf{S}$