Uganda Case Law

Namatovu v Kakande (Small Cliams Procedure Revision 3 of 2023)

Namatovu v Kakande (Small Cliams Procedure Revision 3 of 2023) [2024] UGCommC 92 (26 April 2024)

Court

Commercial Court of Uganda

Case number

Small Cliams Procedure Revision 3 of 2023

Judge

Mutesi, J

The High Court found the application competent, confirming its revisionary powers over small claims under Section 83 of the Civil Procedure Act and Rule 4(4) of the Judicature (Small Claims Procedure) Rules. The trial magistrate had jurisdiction to hear the claim, as the subject matter was the recovery of UGX 8,000,000, not enforcement of collateral. The applicant's purported counterclaim was merely an elucidation of her defence and did not constitute a separate cause of action. However, the trial magistrate's enforcement of an agreement resulting in a 400% interest rate over 8 months (600% p…

Source excerpt

• Small Claims Revision
• Friendly Loan Dispute
• Pecuniary Jurisdiction
• Equitable Mortgage
• Unconscionable Interest
• Counterclaim Procedure

Seven Hills Impex v Wafula (Small Claims Procedure Revision No. 20 of 2020)

Seven Hills Impex v Wafula (Small Claims Procedure Revision No. 20 of 2020) [2022] UGCommC 48 (29 June 2022)

Court

Commercial Court of Uganda

Case number

Small Claims Procedure Revision No. 20 of 2020

Judge

Rwakakooko, J

The High Court set aside a small claims judgment for material irregularity, citing procedural non-compliance, and remitted the matter for retrial.

• Small Claims Revision
• Material Irregularity
• Warranty Disputes
• Judgment Format Requirements
• Small-claims-revision
• Material-irregularity

Namuli & Anor v Kaggwa (Small Cliams Procedure Revision 6 of 2019)

Namuli & Anor v Kaggwa (Small Cliams Procedure Revision 6 of 2019) [2020] UGCommC 19 (30 June 2020)

Court

Commercial Court of Uganda

Case number

Small Cliams Procedure Revision 6 of 2019

Judge

Boniface Wamala, J

The High Court found that the trial Magistrate had jurisdiction to hear the dispute, as the relationship between the parties was a hire purchase agreement, not a contract for service or employment, and thus not excluded from small claims jurisdiction. The alleged irregularities and misdirections raised by the Applicants were matters of judicial discretion and evidence evaluation, which are not grounds for revision under Section 83 of the Civil Procedure Act but are instead appealable issues, for which no right of appeal exists in small claims matters. The denial of opportunity to the 2nd Appl…

Source excerpt

• Small Claims Revision
• Jurisdiction Of Magistrates
• Hire Purchase Contracts
• Burden Of Proof
• Natural Justice
• Fair Hearing