Recent Posts

6/recent/ticker-posts

Francis s/o Mwijage v. Boniface s/o Kabalemeza, Civ. App. 84-M-68, 31/7/68, Seaton J.



Francis s/o Mwijage v. Boniface s/o Kabalemeza, Civ. App. 84-M-68, 31/7/68, Seaton J.

Plaintiff sued defendant in District Court for refund of brideprice allegedly paid by him to defendant. The trial court found that no brideprice had been paid and dismissed the suit. On appeal, a question arose as to the jurisdiction of the District Court to try the suit.

            Held: (1) The law applicable to the suit is customary law, which under section 14 of the Magistrates Courts Act, Cap. 537, is justifiable in Primary Courts. Under section 13 of the Civil Procedure Code, every suit shall be instituted in the court of the lowest grade competent to try it, which was, in this case, a Primary Court. Section 13, however, is a rule of procedure, not of jurisdiction [Citing Mulla, 1934 10th Edition, pp. 98- 100], and does

Not deprive higher courts of jurisdiction which they already possess. Further, under section 35 (2) of the Magistrates Courts Act, District Courts have limited original jurisdiction in proceedings save where it is conferred exclusively on some other court; and section 14 of that Act “does not appear to give primary courts exclusive jurisdiction over suits involving customary law.” Thus the

District Court had jurisdiction to try the suit. (2) Under section 57 of the Magistrates Courts Act, all civil proceedings in respect of the incidents of marriage must be taken in the Primary Court, unless the Republic or the President is a party or the High Court gives leave. Brideprice is one of the incidents of marriage under customary law, and none of the exempting conditions stated above has been fulfilled. The proceedings in the District Court were therefore ultra vires. Appeal dismissed. 

Post a Comment

0 Comments