The High Court’s power of revision under Section 83 of the Civil Procedure Act is restricted to correcting jurisdictional errors and material irregularities; it cannot serve as an appeal in disguise.

Waboga David
Nov 12
5 min read

Facts

The Respondent, Smile Business Partners, filed a summary suit in the Chief Magistrate’s Court of Kabale seeking to recover UGX 48,000,000 from the Applicant, Turyasingura Joshua, and four others.

On 22nd August 2024, judgment was entered in default against the defendants when they failed to file an application for leave to appear and defend the suit.

The Applicant subsequently filed an application in the High Court seeking revision of the lower court’s decision under Section 83 of the Civil Procedure Act, Cap 71, arguing that the Chief Magistrate acted with material irregularity in entering judgment.

The Applicant’s principal contention was that the affidavit in support of the application for summary judgment was sworn by Niyonzima Jackson without lawful authority, as there was allegedly no company resolution authorizing him to do so.

The Respondent opposed the application, asserting that Niyonzima Jackson was the manager of the company, duly incorporated as a single-member company, and therefore competent to act on its behalf. A copy of the company’s money lending license dated 2nd January 2024 was attached to the affidavit in reply.

Issues

Whether the application for revision under Section 83(1)(c) of the Civil Procedure Act was meritorious.

Submissions

For the Appellant

The Appellant argued that the affidavit supporting the default judgment application was fundamentally defective, as Niyonzima Jackson lacked explicit authority from the Respondent company (e.g., no board resolution or corporate authorization).

This defect rendered the trial court's entry of judgment an exercise of jurisdiction with material irregularity or injustice, invoking the revisional powers under Section 83(1)(c) of the Civil Procedure Act.

The Appellant urged the court to revise the orders, set aside the default judgment, and restore the suit for hearing on merits, emphasizing that summary suits demand strict procedural compliance to avoid injustice to defendants.

For the Respondent (M/s Beitwenda & Co. Advocates):

Niyonzima Jackson, as the manager of a single-member company, was inherently authorized to act and swear affidavits on the company's behalf, negating any irregularity.

The attached incorporation documents and money lending license confirmed the Respondent's legal capacity to sue.

The application was a dilatory tactic to "cure" the Appellant's deliberate failure to file a defense within 15 days, as required under summary procedure (Order 36, Civil Procedure Rules).

Any perceived error in affidavit authorization pertained to evidence admissibility, not jurisdictional competence, and did not meet the threshold for revision.

Legal Representation

Applicant, M/s Alice Namara & Co. Advocates

Respondent, M/s Beitwenda & Co. Advocates

Court’s Findings

Justice Karoli Lwanga Ssemogerere began by emphasizing that the High Court’s powers of revision under Section 83(1) of the Civil Procedure Act are narrowly confined to correcting instances where a subordinate court:

“(a) Exercised a jurisdiction not vested in it in law;(b) Failed to exercise a jurisdiction so vested; or(c) Acted in the exercise of its jurisdiction illegally or with material irregularity or injustice.”

His Lordship clarified that revision is not an appellate function and cannot be invoked to correct mere errors of judgment or to substitute the High Court’s own view for that of the lower court. Rather, it is a special jurisdiction intended to cure illegality, material irregularity, or miscarriage of justice.

Drawing comparative guidance from the Supreme Court of India in Madanlal v Shamlal [2002 (1) SCC 535], the Court reiterated:

“The High Court in a revision cannot interfere with an erroneous order unless it is shown that the trial court acted with material irregularity in the exercise of its jurisdiction and that the order would result in a failure of justice.”

Upon examining the record of the Chief Magistrate’s Court, Justice Ssemogerere found that the defendants were duly served with the plaint and given an opportunity to apply for leave to defend, but failed to do so within the statutory 15 days, resulting in a lawful default judgment.

The alleged absence of a company resolution authorizing the affidavit in support of the summary suit was found to be a matter of evidentiary admissibility, not jurisdiction. As the Judge observed:

“In any event, the admission of the affidavit in this case was a matter of admissibility of evidence rather than exercise of jurisdiction. Jurisdiction speaks to two aspects — subject matter and pecuniary jurisdiction. Neither of the two is alleged in the application.”

On the question of corporate authority, the Court referred to Foss v Harbottle (1843) 2 Hare 461; 67 ER 189, which establishes that where a wrong is alleged against a company, the proper claimant is the company itself acting through proper authorization. However, the Court agreed with the position taken by Wejuli J. in Money Lenders Association Uganda Ltd v Uganda Registration Services Bureau [HCMC No. 11 of 2019], that:

“A company resolution to commence a suit is not necessarily a pre-requisite.”

This reasoning was further supported by Wagona J. in Alisen Foundation Group of Companies Ltd v Bazara Julius [HCT-01-CV-MA-0054-2024], where it was held that managerial authority may suffice, especially in single-member companies such as the Respondent.

The Court concluded that the Applicant’s grievance—challenging the authority behind the affidavit—did not raise any jurisdictional defect or material irregularity within the meaning of Section 83 of the Civil Procedure Act. Instead, it amounted to a procedural objection that could have been properly addressed through an appeal, not revision.

Justice Ssemogerere succinctly stated:

“The error complained of by the Applicant is one that can be redressed by appeal. A revision addresses an error of law or material irregularity or injustice. Here none is expressly alleged. The discussion is on commencement and hearing of a suit, not an exercise of jurisdiction not vested in the Chief Magistrate’s Court by law.”

Accordingly, the Court found no illegality, material irregularity, or injustice in the conduct or decision of the Chief Magistrate’s Court.

In conclusion, the High Court dismissed the application for revision with costs to the Respondent, affirming that the default judgment entered on 22 August 2024 in Civil Suit No. 60 of 2024 remains valid and enforceable.

Holding

The High Court held that the application for revision lacked merit and accordingly dismissed it with costs to the Respondent.

Order:

“This application fails. Costs are awarded to the Respondent.”

Key Takeaways

Scope of Revision
The High Court’s power of revision under Section 83 CPA is restricted to correcting jurisdictional errors and material irregularities, it cannot serve as an appeal in disguise.
Company Resolutions
For a single-member company, a separate company resolution may not be necessary to authorize commencement of legal proceedings or to swear affidavits.
Default Judgments in Summary Suits
Failure to file an application for leave to defend within the prescribed 15 days justifies entry of default judgment.
Admissibility vs Jurisdiction
Defects in affidavits or authorization are evidentiary issues, not jurisdictional ones, and thus do not warrant revision.
Proper Remedy
Dissatisfaction with a court’s judgment should ordinarily be pursued by appeal, not revision, unless a clear illegality or miscarriage of justice is demonstrated.