In Kasibante Moses vs Katongole Singh Marwana & Anor Kampala Election

Petition No. 23 of 2011

Hon. Justice Musoke Kibuuka stated: The term jurisdiction is not a term of art. It
is a term of law. It is a term of very extensive legal import. It embraces every kind
of judicial action. It confers upon the court the power to decide any matter in
controversy. It pre-supposes the existence of a duly, constituted court with full
control over the subject matter under adjudication. It also presupposes full
control by the court of the parties to the subject matter under investigation by it.
Jurisdiction defines the power of a court to inquire into facts, to apply the relevant
law, to make decisions and to declare the final outcome of the subject matter
under its inquiry
His Lordship further stated: ..It is trite law that no court can confer jurisdiction
upon itself. It is equally trite that no court can assign or delegate jurisdiction
vested in it
In Ahmed Kawoya Kangu vs Bangu Aggrey Fred & Anor SCC Application no. 4 of
2007 Hon. Justice Bart Katureebe held that jurisdiction of the Court is not a matter
for implication but must be prescribed by law.
In Arther Tindimwebwa & Others vs Joy Muhereza & Anor HCT-05-CV-CA-00552010, Justice Bashaija stated; It is settled that jurisdiction is always a creative of
statute and where the statute does not expressly confer such jurisdiction, a court
cannot competently entertain the matter.
In Ankwatsa v Uganda, territorial jurisdiction was discussed and court decided that
it has meaning within section 34 of the Magistrate Courts Act which provides;
Subject to the provisions relating to transfer conferred by this Act, every offence
shall ordinarily be inquired into or tried by a court within the local limits of whose
jurisdiction it was committed.
In Munobwa Muhamed Vs Uganda Muslim Supreme Council (Civil Revision No.
1 Of 2006), an application arose from the decision of Igeme Nabeta, Senior Grade II
Magistrate sitting at Kaliro, in which he declared that the piece of land in dispute
belongs to the respondents who were the plaintiffs in the suit. The applicants
complained that the trial magistrate had no jurisdiction to entertain the suit and
thus acted illegally because the value of the land was above his pecuniary
jurisdiction.

Counsel for the applicant argued that in 2002 when the trial magistrate entertained
the dispute, s. 207 (1) (c) of the Magistrates Courts Act (MCA) limited the jurisdiction
of Grade II magistrates to causes where the subject matter had a maximum value of
shs 500,000/=. Counsel advanced his argument by stating that by 2002, the piece of
land that was in dispute which measured 800 x 400 ft. must have had a value higher
than shs 500,000/=. That as a result the trial magistrate entertained the dispute
illegally and that his decision is a nullity.
SUPREME COURT CASE
In Abdul Komakech Vs Uganda, on 8th March 1988, Ouma, J. convicted the appellant
in the High Court of simple robbery, contrary to sections 272 and 273(1) of the penal
code. He sentenced him to six years imprisonment. The appellant was in addition
ordered to receive six strokes of cane and to compensate the complainant in the sum
of shs. 55,000/= which was alleged to have been taken from her by the robbers. The
other mandatory order for police supervision was not made when it should, under
Section 123 of the Trial on Indictments decree. The appellant brought his application
to the supreme court on the lack of evidence by the prosecution that he had
committed the offence. Wambuzi C.J as he then was decided that accordingly, we
quash the conviction and set aside the sentence and orders of the lower court and
order that the appellant shall be set free forthwith unless he is otherwise lawfully
held.
COURT OF APPEAL CASE