Download

Uganda Judgment

High Court of Uganda

Joseph Kalingamire v Godfrey Mugulusi (CIVIL SUIT NO. MMEK 10 OF 2000 ) (CIVIL SUIT NO. MMEK 10 of 2000) [2003] UGHC 37 (4 July 2003)

On this page

Professional case brief

Research organized from the available case record

Source document

01

Holding and result

The Grade 1 Magistrate awarded general damages of UGX 2,400,000/= to the plaintiff for wrongful arrest and malicious prosecution, exceeding the statutory jurisdictional limit of UGX 2,000,000/=. Jurisdiction is strictly a creature of statute, and any order made in excess of the conferred jurisdiction is a nullity. The High Court, exercising its revisional jurisdiction under section 84(a) of the Civil Procedure Act, cannot merely reduce the award but must treat the original order as void and make a fresh determination based on the evidence. Considering the circumstances of humiliation and wrongful arrest, the High Court found UGX 1,200,000/= to be an appropriate award for general damages, replacing the nullified magistrate's order. The costs order made by the trial magistrate remains intact.

Court disposition

Order of the trial magistrate awarding UGX 2,400,000/= as general damages is set aside as a nullity; plaintiff awarded UGX 1,200,000/= as general damages; costs order remains intact.

Orders

  • The order of the Grade 1 Magistrate awarding UGX 2,400,000/= as general damages is set aside as a nullity.
  • Plaintiff is awarded UGX 1,200,000/= as general damages for wrongful arrest and malicious prosecution.
  • The costs order made by the trial magistrate remains intact.

02

Material facts

Parties

Joseph Kalingamire

Plaintiff Counsel: Mr. Nshinye Sebuturo

Godfrey Mugulusi

Defendant

Amounts and remedies

  • General Damages Awarded by High Court: UGX 1,200,000
  • General Damages Originally Awarded by Magistrate (set Aside): UGX 2,400,000
  • Jurisdictional Limit for Grade 1 Magistrate: UGX 2,000,000

03

Procedural history

  1. Posture

    Revisional Order / High Court Review

04

Questions and positions

Legal issues

Party arguments

Applicant
Counsel for the plaintiff argued that the Grade 1 Magistrate awarded general damages of UGX 2,400,000/=, exceeding the statutory jurisdictional limit of UGX 2,000,000/= under section 219 of the Magistrates Courts Act. He requested the High Court to revise the order and reduce the award to the statutory maximum, placing it within the magistrate's jurisdiction.
Respondent
The defendant did not present arguments before the High Court in the revisional proceedings. Both parties indicated they did not wish to be heard before the revisional order was made.

05

Court’s reasoning

  1. 01

    David B. Kayondo Vs. The Co-operative Bank (U) Ltd. SCCA No. 10 of 1991 (unreported)

    Jurisdiction is conferred by statute or the constitution; orders made without jurisdiction are nullities.

  2. 02

    Section 219(1)(b), Magistrates Courts Act, as amended by Statute 6 of 1990

    A Grade 1 Magistrate has jurisdiction only where the value of the subject matter does not exceed UGX 2,000,000/=.

  3. 03

    Section 84(a), Civil Procedure Act

    The High Court may revise any case where a magistrate has exercised jurisdiction not vested in him.

  4. 04

    Mubiru and Others Vs. Kayiwa (1979) HCB 212

    An order made without jurisdiction is a nullity ab initio.

06

Ratio, limits and disposition

Ratio decidendi

The Grade 1 Magistrate awarded general damages of UGX 2,400,000/= to the plaintiff for wrongful arrest and malicious prosecution, exceeding the statutory jurisdictional limit of UGX 2,000,000/=. Jurisdiction is strictly a creature of statute, and any order made in excess of the conferred jurisdiction is a nullity. The High Court, exercising its revisional jurisdiction under section 84(a) of the Civil Procedure Act, cannot merely reduce the award but must treat the original order as void and make a fresh determination based on the evidence. Considering the circumstances of humiliation and wrongful arrest, the High Court found UGX 1,200,000/= to be an appropriate award for general damages, replacing the nullified magistrate's order. The costs order made by the trial magistrate remains intact.

Obiter and limits

  • Although the statutory monetary limit for Grade 1 Magistrates may seem outdated given Uganda's current circumstances, it remains binding law until amended.
  • The High Court, in revisional jurisdiction, must look at the case as a whole and make an appropriate order based on the evidence, not simply correct the excess.

Court disposition

Order of the trial magistrate awarding UGX 2,400,000/= as general damages is set aside as a nullity; plaintiff awarded UGX 1,200,000/= as general damages; costs order remains intact.

  • The order of the Grade 1 Magistrate awarding UGX 2,400,000/= as general damages is set aside as a nullity.
  • Plaintiff is awarded UGX 1,200,000/= as general damages for wrongful arrest and malicious prosecution.
  • The costs order made by the trial magistrate remains intact.

Source and reliance status

High Court of Uganda

This page organises the available record for research. Confirm quotations, current status, and subsequent treatment against the official source before relying on the case.

Source document

Judgment reading view

Judgment text

The complete available source text.

Source document

High Court of Uganda

Judgment

[2003] UGHC 37

{\rtf1\ansi\ansicpg1252\uc1\deff37\stshfdbch37\stshfloch37\stshfhich37\stshfbi0\deflang2057\deflangfe2057{\fonttbl{\f0\froman\fcharset0\fprq2{\*\panose 02020603050405020304}Times New Roman;} {\f37\fswiss\fcharset0\fprq2{\*\panose 020f0502020204030204}Calibri{\*\falt Arial Rounded MT Bold};}{\f190\froman\fcharset238\fprq2 Times New Roman CE;}{\f191\froman\fcharset204\fprq2 Times New Roman Cyr;} {\f193\froman\fcharset161\fprq2 Times New Roman Greek;}{\f194\froman\fcharset162\fprq2 Times New Roman Tur;}{\f195\froman\fcharset177\fprq2 Times New Roman (Hebrew);}{\f196\froman\fcharset178\fprq2 Times New Roman (Arabic);} {\f197\froman\fcharset186\fprq2 Times New Roman Baltic;}{\f198\froman\fcharset163\fprq2 Times New Roman (Vietnamese);}}{\colortbl;\red0\green0\blue0;\red0\green0\blue255;\red0\green255\blue255;\red0\green255\blue0;\red255\green0\blue255; \red255\green0\blue0;\red255\green255\blue0;\red255\green255\blue255;\red0\green0\blue128;\red0\green128\blue128;\red0\green128\blue0;\red128\green0\blue128;\red128\green0\blue0;\red128\green128\blue0;\red128\green128\blue128;\red192\green192\blue192;} {\stylesheet{\ql \li0\ri0\sa200\sl276\slmult1\widctlpar\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0 \f37\fs22\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 \snext0 \styrsid15035167 Normal;}{\*\cs10 \additive \ssemihidden Default Paragraph

Font;}{\*\ts11\tsrowd\trftsWidthB3\trpaddl108\trpaddr108\trpaddfl3\trpaddft3\trpaddfb3\trpaddfr3\trcbpat1\trcfpat1\tscellwidthfts0\tsvertalt\tsbrdrt\tsbrdrl\tsbrdrb\tsbrdrr\tsbrdrdgl\tsbrdrdgr\tsbrdrh\tsbrdrv \ql \li0\ri0\widctlpar\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0 \fs20\lang1024\langfe1024\loch\f37\hich\af37\dbch\af37\cgrid\langnp1024\langfenp1024 \snext11 \ssemihidden Normal Table;}{ \s15\ql \li0\ri0\sb100\sa100\sbauto1\saauto1\widctlpar\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0 \fs24\lang1033\langfe1033\loch\f37\hich\af37\dbch\af37\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 \sbasedon0 \snext15 \ssemihidden \styrsid9175267 Normal (Web);}} {\*\latentstyles\lsdstimax156\lsdlockeddef0{\lsdlockedexcept Normal;heading 1;heading 2;heading 3;heading 4;heading 5;heading 6;heading 7;heading 8;heading 9;toc 1;toc 2;toc 3;toc 4;toc 5;toc 6;toc 7;toc 8;toc 9;caption;Title;Default Paragraph Font;Subtitle;Strong;Emphasis;Table Grid;}} {\*\rsidtbl \rsid2653181\rsid3606578\rsid5520824\rsid9175267\rsid12259001\rsid15035167\rsid16386336}{\*\generator Microsoft Word 11.0.5604;}{\info{\author Administrator}{\operator jchemeri}{\creatim\yr2008\mo12\dy4\hr17\min4} {\revtim\yr2008\mo12\dy11\hr12\min5}{\version4}{\edmins10}{\nofpages3}{\nofwords905}{\nofchars5165}{\*\company Courts of

Judicature}{\nofcharsws6058}{\vern24689}}\margl1440\margr1440 \widowctrl\ftnbj\aenddoc\noxlattoyen\expshrtn\noultrlspc\dntblnsbdb\nospaceforul\hyphcaps0\formshade\horzdoc\dgmargin\dghspace180\dgvspace180\dghorigin150\dgvorigin0\dghshow1\dgvshow1 \jexpand\viewkind5\viewscale100\pgbrdrhead\pgbrdrfoot\splytwnine\ftnlytwnine\htmautsp\nolnhtadjtbl\useltbaln\alntblind\lytcalctblwd\lyttblrtgr\lnbrkrule\nobrkwrptbl\snaptogridincell\allowfieldendsel\wrppunct \asianbrkrule\rsidroot9175267\newtblstyruls\nogrowautofit \fet0\sectd \linex0\headery708\footery708\colsx708\endnhere\sectlinegrid360\sectdefaultcl\sectrsid5520824\sftnbj {\*\pnseclvl1\pnucrm\pnstart1\pnindent720\pnhang {\pntxta .}}{\*\pnseclvl2 \pnucltr\pnstart1\pnindent720\pnhang {\pntxta .}}{\*\pnseclvl3\pndec\pnstart1\pnindent720\pnhang {\pntxta .}}{\*\pnseclvl4\pnlcltr\pnstart1\pnindent720\pnhang {\pntxta )}}{\*\pnseclvl5\pndec\pnstart1\pnindent720\pnhang {\pntxtb (}{\pntxta )}}{\*\pnseclvl6 \pnlcltr\pnstart1\pnindent720\pnhang {\pntxtb (}{\pntxta )}}{\*\pnseclvl7\pnlcrm\pnstart1\pnindent720\pnhang {\pntxtb (}{\pntxta )}}{\*\pnseclvl8\pnlcltr\pnstart1\pnindent720\pnhang {\pntxtb (}{\pntxta )}}{\*\pnseclvl9\pnlcrm\pnstart1\pnindent720\pnhang {\pntxtb (}{\pntxta )}}\pard\plain \s15\qc \li0\ri0\sb100\sa240\sbauto1\sl360\slmult1\widctlpar\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid12259001

\fs24\lang1033\langfe1033\loch\af37\hich\af37\dbch\af37\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 { \b\f0\insrsid9175267\charrsid2653181 \hich\af0\dbch\af37\loch\f0 THE REPUBLIC OF UGANDA \line IN THE HIGH COURT OF UGANDA, AT KAMPALA \line CIVIL SUIT NO. MMEK 10 OF 2000 \line CHIEF MAGISTRATE\hich\f0 \rquote \loch\f0 S COURT, OF MUBENDE. \line }{ \b\f0\ul\insrsid9175267\charrsid2653181 \hich\af0\dbch\af37\loch\f0 AT KIBOGA }{\b\f0\insrsid9175267\charrsid2653181 \line }{\b\f0\insrsid12259001\charrsid2653181 \par }\pard \s15\ql \li0\ri0\sb100\sa240\sbauto1\sl360\slmult1\widctlpar\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid12259001 {\b\f0\insrsid9175267\charrsid2653181 \hich\af0\dbch\af37\loch\f0 JOSEPH }{\f0\insrsid9175267\charrsid2653181 \hich\af0\dbch\af37\loch\f0 KALINGAMIRE::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::}{\f0\insrsid12259001\charrsid2653181 \hich\af0\dbch\af37\loch\f0 :::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::}{ \f0\insrsid9175267\charrsid2653181 \hich\af0\dbch\af37\loch\f0 :::::::::::::::::}{\f0\insrsid12259001\charrsid2653181 \hich\af0\dbch\af37\loch\f0 : PLAINTIFF}{\f0\insrsid9175267\charrsid2653181 \hich\af0\dbch\af37\loch\f0 \line }{ \f0\insrsid12259001\charrsid2653181 \par }\pard \s15\qc \li0\ri0\sb100\sa240\sbauto1\sl360\slmult1\widctlpar\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid12259001 {\f0\insrsid9175267\charrsid2653181 \hich\af0\dbch\af37\loch\f0 VERSUS \line }{\f0\insrsid12259001\charrsid2653181

\par }\pard \s15\ql \li0\ri0\sb100\sa240\sbauto1\sl360\slmult1\widctlpar\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid12259001 {\f0\insrsid9175267\charrsid2653181 \hich\af0\dbch\af37\loch\f0 GODFREY MUGULUSI::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::}{ \f0\insrsid12259001\charrsid2653181 \hich\af0\dbch\af37\loch\f0 :::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::\hich\af0\dbch\af37\loch\f0 :::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::\hich\af0\dbch\af37\loch\f0 : DEFENDANT}{ \f0\insrsid9175267\charrsid2653181 \hich\af0\dbch\af37\loch\f0 . \line }{\b\f0\insrsid9175267\charrsid2653181 \hich\af0\dbch\af37\loch\f0 BEFORE: }{\b\f0\ul\insrsid9175267\charrsid2653181 \hich\af0\dbch\af37\loch\f0 V. F. MUSOKE-KIBUUKA }{ \b\f0\insrsid9175267\charrsid2653181 \hich\af0\dbch\af37\loch\f0 (JUDGE) \line }{\f0\ul\insrsid9175267\charrsid2653181 \hich\af0\dbch\af37\loch\f0 Revisional Order. }{\f0\insrsid9175267\charrsid2653181 \line \hich\af0\dbch\af37\loch\f0 This file was called by the High Court from t}{\f0\insrsid12259001\charrsid2653181 \hich\af0\dbch\af37\loch\f0 he Chief Magistrate court of }{\f0\insrsid9175267\charrsid2653181 \hich\af0\dbch\af37\loch\f0 Mubende, following a request for a revisional order by c\hich\af0\dbch\af37\loch\f0 ounsel for the plaintiff. \line }{\f0\insrsid12259001\charrsid2653181 \par }{\f0\insrsid9175267\charrsid2653181

\hich\af0\dbch\af37\loch\f0 The plaintiff sued the defendant in the Magistrate Grade }{\i\f0\insrsid9175267\charrsid2653181 \hich\af0\dbch\af37\loch\f0 1 }{\f0\insrsid9175267\charrsid2653181 \hich\af0\dbch\af37\loch\f0 court at Kiboga. The cause of action was a claim for general damages which, the plaintiff claimed, arose out of wrongful arrest, imprisonment and malicious prosecution f\hich\af0\dbch\af37\loch\f0 ollowing a false report made by the defendant to the effect that the plaintiff had criminally trespassed upon the defendant\hich\f0 \rquote \loch\f0 s land. \line The case was heard by a grade one magistrate, his worship Ssejjemba Dec. He entered judgment for the plaintiff against the\hich\af0\dbch\af37\loch\f0 \hich\af0\dbch\af37\loch\f0 defe}{\f0\insrsid12259001\charrsid2653181 \hich\af0\dbch\af37\loch\f0 ndant for maliciously causing }{\f0\insrsid9175267\charrsid2653181 \hich\af0\dbch\af37\loch\f0 the wrongful arrest and detention of the plaintiff. The learned trial magistrate awarded the plaintiff general damages in the sum of shs 2,400,000/=. \line }{ \f0\insrsid12259001\charrsid2653181 \par }{\f0\insrsid9175267\charrsid2653181 \hich\af0\dbch\af37\loch\f0 The only issue raised by counsel for the plaintiff, Mr. Nshinye Sebutu\hich\af0\dbch\af37\loch\f0 ro, is that in awarding the sum of shs. 2,400,000/= as general damages, the learned trial magistrate exercised

jurisdiction not vested in him. \line }{\f0\insrsid12259001\charrsid2653181 \par }{\f0\insrsid9175267\charrsid2653181 \hich\af0\dbch\af37\loch\f0 Both parties did not wish to be heard by this court before it made the revisional order. \line Section 84(a) of the \hich\af0\dbch\af37\loch\f0 Civil Procedure Act, provides: \line \hich\f0 \'93\loch\f0 84. The High Court may call for the record of any case which has been determined by any magistrate\hich\f0 \rquote \loch\f0 s court and if such court appears to have- \line a) exercised a jurisdiction not vested in it in law, or \line b) \line C) \line the High Court\hich\af0\dbch\af37\loch\f0 \hich\af0\dbch\af37\loch\f0 may revise the said case and may make such order therein as it thinks fits}{\f0\insrsid12259001\charrsid2653181 \loch\af0\dbch\af37\hich\f0 \'85\'85\'85\'85\'85\'85\'85 \'85\'85\'85\'94}{\f0\insrsid9175267\charrsid2653181 \hich\af0\dbch\af37\loch\f0 \line }{\f0\insrsid12259001\charrsid2653181 \par }{\f0\insrsid9175267\charrsid2653181 \hich\af0\dbch\af37\loch\f0 The complaint in the instant case is that the learned trial magistrate in making the order awarding to the plaintiff general damag}{\f0\insrsid12259001\charrsid2653181 \hich\af0\dbch\af37\loch\f0 es in the sum of shs. 2,400,000/}{\f0\insrsid9175267\charrsid2653181 \hich\af0\dbch\af37\loch\f0 = he e\hich\af0\dbch\af37\loch\f0 xercised

jurisdiction}{\f0\insrsid12259001\charrsid2653181 \hich\af0\dbch\af37\loch\f0 that was not vested in him. \line }{\f0\insrsid9175267\charrsid2653181 \hich\af0\dbch\af37\loch\f0 Jurisdiction is always a creature of a statute or of the constitution. }{\f0\ul\insrsid9175267\charrsid2653181 \hich\af0\dbch\af37\loch\f0 David B. Kayondo Vs. The Co-operative Bank (U) Ltd. SCCA No. 10 of 1991 }{\f0\insrsid9175267\charrsid2653181 \hich\af0\dbch\af37\loch\f0 (unreported). \line Section 219 of the Magistrates\hich\f0 \rquote \loch\f0 Courts Act, as \hich\af0\dbch\af37\loch\f0 amended by Statute 6, of 1990 provides, in its paragraph b) of subsection 1) that: \line \hich\f0 \'93\loch\f0 219(1) \line a) }{\f0\insrsid12259001\charrsid2653181 \loch\af0\dbch\af37\hich\f0 \'85\'85\'85\'85\'85\'85\'85\'85 \'85\'85\'85\'85\'85\'85}{\f0\insrsid9175267\charrsid2653181 \line \hich\af0\dbch\af37\loch\f0 b) a magistrate Grade 1 shall have jurisdiction where the value of the subject matter does not exceed shs. 2,000,000/=. \line }{ \f0\insrsid12259001\charrsid2653181 \par }{\f0\insrsid9175267\charrsid2653181 \hich\af0\dbch\af37\loch\f0 Although, considering t\hich\af0\dbch\af37\loch\f0 he circumstances of Uganda today, that provision may seem quite ridiculous, it remains the law creating jurisdiction for Grade 1 magistrates in civil matters. \line }{\f0\insrsid12259001\charrsid2653181 \par

}{\f0\insrsid9175267\charrsid2653181 \hich\af0\dbch\af37\loch\f0 It follows, therefore, that when a Grade one magistrate makes an order awarding general damages\hich\af0\dbch\af37\loch\f0 the sum of which exceeds the monetary jurisdiction of shs. 2,000,000/= set by the law in section 219,of the magistrates\hich\f0 \rquote \loch\f0 Courts Act, 1970, such magistrate would be exercising jurisdiction not vested in him. The High Court would appropriately invoke the p\hich\af0\dbch\af37\loch\f0 r\hich\af0\dbch\af37\loch\f0 ovisions of section 84 (a), of the Civil Procedure Act and make such order as it thinks fit. \line }{\f0\insrsid12259001\charrsid2653181 \par }{\f0\insrsid9175267\charrsid2653181 \hich\af0\dbch\af37\loch\f0 What is the appropriate order in the}{\f0\insrsid12259001\charrsid2653181 \hich\af0\dbch\af37\loch\f0 circumstances of this case? \line }{\f0\insrsid9175267\charrsid2653181 \hich\af0\dbch\af37\loch\f0 The plaintiff, through his counsel sought a revisional order solely for the purpose of correcti\hich\af0\dbch\af37\loch\f0 ng the order or reducing the award of general damages from the sum of shs. 2,400,000/= which was in excess of the monetary jurisdiction of the trial magistrate of shs. 2,000,000/= to a sum of shs. 2,000,000/= which places the award within the confines of \hich\af0\dbch\af37\loch\f0 t\hich\af0\dbch\af37\loch\f0 he trial magistrate\hich\f0

\rquote \loch\f0 s jurisdiction. \line }{\f0\insrsid12259001\charrsid2653181 \par }{\f0\insrsid9175267\charrsid2653181 \hich\af0\dbch\af37\loch\f0 However, in }{\f0\ul\insrsid9175267\charrsid2653181 \hich\af0\dbch\af37\loch\f0 Mubiru and Others Vs. Kayiwa (1979) HCB 212, }{\f0\insrsid9175267\charrsid2653181 \hich\af0\dbch\af37\loch\f0 \hich\f0 the court of Appeal of Uganda held that \'93\loch\f0 an }{\f0\ul\insrsid9175267\charrsid2653181 \hich\af0\dbch\af37\loch\f0 \hich\f0 Order made without jurisdiction is a nullity\'94\loch\f0 . }{\f0\insrsid9175267\charrsid2653181 \line \hich\af0\dbch\af37\loch\f0 In the instant case, since the order of the trial magistrate awarding\hich\af0\dbch\af37\loch\f0 general damages in the sum of shs. 2,400,000,000/= to the plaintiff was made without appropriate jurisdiction, it was }{ \f0\ul\insrsid9175267\charrsid2653181 \hich\af0\dbch\af37\loch\f0 a nullity ab-initio. }{\f0\insrsid9175267\charrsid2653181 \line }{\f0\insrsid12259001\charrsid2653181 \par }{\f0\insrsid9175267\charrsid2653181 \hich\af0\dbch\af37\loch\f0 If that is the correct legal position, then that order cannot form the basis upon which this court may think fit t\hich\af0\dbch\af37\loch\f0 o make under section 84(a) of the Civil Procedure Act. In the circumstances, although this court is merely exercising its revisional jurisdiction and not it\hich\f0 \rquote \loch\f0 s appellate

jurisdiction, it appears to me that the court has to look at the case as a whole and u\hich\af0\dbch\af37\loch\f0 p\hich\af0\dbch\af37\loch\f0 on the evidence received by the trial magistrate make an order as to general damages as the court considers appropriate in the circumstances of the case as a whole. \line }{\f0\insrsid12259001\charrsid2653181 \par }{\f0\insrsid9175267\charrsid2653181 \hich\af0\dbch\af37\loch\f0 In light of what is stated above, I have examine}{\f0\insrsid12259001\charrsid2653181 \hich\af0\dbch\af37\loch\f0 d the record and the judgment. }{\f0\insrsid9175267\charrsid2653181 \hich\af0\dbch\af37\loch\f0 Both the p\hich\af0\dbch\af37\loch\f0 laintiff and the defendant were simple}{\f0\insrsid12259001\charrsid2653181 \hich\af0\dbch\af37\loch\f0 cattle keepers or herdsmen of }{\f0\insrsid9175267\charrsid2653181 \hich\af0\dbch\af37\loch\f0 Kabagaya village in Kiboga District. The plaintiff was}{\f0\insrsid16386336\charrsid2653181 \hich\af0\dbch\af37\loch\f0 arrested by the police from \line }{\f0\insrsid9175267\charrsid2653181 \hich\af0\dbch\af37\loch\f0 his home. He was handcuffed and taken to Kyanda police post. The arrest was prompted by a malicious and\hich\af0\dbch\af37\loch\f0 false report made to the police by the defendant against the plaintiff to the effect that the plaintiff had criminally trespassed upon the defendant\hich\f0 \rquote \loch\f0 s land.

The two had had long standing misunderstandings. The plaintiff spent one night in the police cell\hich\af0\dbch\af37\loch\f0 s\hich\af0\dbch\af37\loch\f0 before he was transferred to Kiboga police station from where he was released upon a police bond. The plaintiff was taken from his home to the police when handcuffed. He was seriously humiliated. The defendant boasted that the plaintiff would learn from \hich\af0\dbch\af37\loch\f0 h\hich\af0\dbch\af37\loch\f0 is arrest that he (plaintiff) is also a man. \line }{\f0\insrsid16386336\charrsid2653181 \par }{\f0\insrsid9175267\charrsid2653181 \hich\af0\dbch\af37\loch\f0 In the circumstances, I consider an order awarding general damages of shs 1,200,000/= (one million two hundred thousands), to the plaintiff as appropriate. I accordingly award the plaintiff that sum as general\hich\af0\dbch\af37\loch\f0 damages instead of the order made by the trial magistrate which order was a nullity for lack of appropriate jurisdiction. \line }{\f0\insrsid16386336\charrsid2653181 \par }{\f0\insrsid9175267\charrsid2653181 \hich\af0\dbch\af37\loch\f0 The order made by the trial magistrate in relation to costs remains intact. }{\f0\insrsid16386336\charrsid2653181 \par }{\b\f0\insrsid16386336\charrsid2653181 \par }{\b\f0\insrsid9175267\charrsid2653181 \hich\af0\dbch\af37\loch\f0 V. F. MUSOKE-KIBUUKA (JUDGE) \line 4.7.2003 }{\f0\insrsid9175267\charrsid2653181 \par }\pard\plain \ql \li0\ri0\sa200\sl360\slmult1\widctlpar\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid12259001 \f37\fs22\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 {\f0\fs24\insrsid15035167\charrsid2653181 \par }}

Source wording is retained. Consult the source document for its original formatting and pagination.

Authorities

Authorities used by the court

Cases, legislation, regulations, and constitutional provisions identified in the available record.

David B. Kayondo Vs. The Co-operative Bank (U) Ltd. SCCA No. 10 of 1991 (unreported)

Case cited

Mubiru and Others Vs. Kayiwa (1979) HCB 212

Case cited

Civil Procedure Act, Section 84(a)

Legislation

Legislation referenced in the available case record.

Magistrates Courts Act, Section 219(1)(b) as amended by Statute 6 of 1990

Legislation

Legislation referenced in the available case record.

Case-aware research

Ask AI about this case

The judgment and available research above are public. New questions open in a separate private conversation grounded in this case.

About this JurisAssist collection

This page organizes the available case record for research. Verify quotations, current status, and subsequent treatment against the source document. Corrections can be reported to hello@esheria.ai.

Legal information, not legal advice. Research summaries do not replace the judgment.