FACTS
In an action in a primary court for recovery of a loan of Shs. 250/- evidenced by a document, defendant acknowledged the debt and judgment was entered by consent. Defendant later appealed on the ground that the loan was conditional on the performance of work, which work had not been done. The district court magistrate took further evidence, upon which he set aside the judgment of the primary court.
HELD
( 1) A judgment entered into by consent should not be upset by another court, and the district court was wrong in taking further evidence.
(2) The primary court had no jurisdiction to hear the case, as the law applicable was not customary law or Islamic law, nor was this an action for the recovery of a civil debt by the Government. [Citing Magistrates’ Courts Act, s. 14(1).] Consequently, the whole proceeding was a nullity
Well
ReplyDelete