The recent reforms under the Magistrates Courts Amendment Act, 2026 increasing the pecuniary jurisdiction of subordinate courts have been welcomed as a significant step toward improving access to justice and reducing backlog in the High Court.
Chief Magistrates’ Courts may now handle matters up to Shs200 million, while Magistrates Grade I Courts may handle claims up to Shs100 million.
These reforms are intended to decongest the High Court and bring judicial services closer to litigants. However, what happens to pending suits that were properly filed before the High Court or other courts before the amendment came into force?
Under Ugandan civil procedure, transfer of suits is not ordinarily automatic merely because jurisdictional limits have changed.
The power to transfer suits is governed principally by the Civil Procedure Act and the Civil Procedure Rules. Consequently, many pending High Court matters may legally continue before the High Court unless: the law expressly mandates transfer, the High Court issues transfer orders, or parties apply for transfer and the court considers it appropriate.
Although the law already provides for transfer of suits, the present reforms create practical challenges that existing procedural rules may not fully address, particularly in stations that are not yet operating under the Electronic Court Case Management Information System (ECCMIS).
The issue is not simply whether transfer is legally possible, but how any transfer process should be implemented fairly, efficiently, and transparently. The Judiciary may still need to clarify: whether certain categories of pending matters should remain in their current courts, whether transfer will occur only upon application or by administrative scheduling, how part-heard matters will be treated, and how physical files will be managed during transition.
One of the cardinal principles of justice is that litigants must know where their matters are being handled. Where files are transferred without proper communication, parties may miss hearings, fail to comply with timelines, or suffer ex parte proceedings and orders.
If transfers are undertaken, a clear notification framework becomes essential. Litigants and advocates should ideally receive: notice of the transferring court; the receiving court; the new case number where applicable; the effective date of transfer; and the next appearance date.
Communication through cause lists, registry notices, SMS alerts, and advocate notifications may be more immediately practical.
A further practical concern relates to case numbering. A matter originally filed as: ‘High Court Civil Suit No. 001 of 2024’ may acquire an entirely different reference upon transfer to a subordinate court. Without a standardized tracking mechanism, tracing proceedings may become difficult for: advocates, registry staff, appellate courts, and litigants themselves.
A dual-reference system would greatly reduce confusion. For example:
‘Formerly High Court Civil Suit No. 001 of 2024, now CMCC No. 108 of 2026.’ This preserves continuity and improves traceability. Similarly, transferred files should ideally contain a transfer summary sheet indicating: pleadings filed, pending applications, interim orders, previous proceedings, and the present status of the matter. The article’s strongest concern relates to physical court file management.
Uganda’s courts have historically faced challenges involving: missing files, incomplete records, misplaced annexures, delayed transmission of proceedings, and damaged documents. These risks become even greater where large numbers of physical files are moved between courts operating outside ECCMIS infrastructure. Strict chain-of-custody procedures are therefore essential.
Practical safeguards may include: file inventory registers, acknowledgment of receipt between registries, sealed transfer packaging, and designated transfer officers. Part-heard matters present perhaps the most delicate issue. Restarting proceedings before another judicial officer may; increase costs, waste judicial time, inconvenience witnesses, and delay justice. In many instances, efficiency and fairness may favor allowing the original judicial officer to conclude substantially heard matters despite revised pecuniary limits.
The Judiciary may therefore need to distinguish between: newly filed matters, partly heard matters, and matters pending judgment. Such distinctions would reduce unnecessary duplication of proceedings.
The reforms increasing pecuniary jurisdiction are progressive and capable of substantially improving access to justice. However, the success of the reforms will depend not only on expanded jurisdictional limits, but also on how transitional issues are managed in practice. The law on transfer of suits already provides an important framework under the Civil Procedure Act.
Nevertheless, the present reforms expose practical gaps that may require additional practice directions and administrative guidance.
If poorly managed, transfers could create procedural disputes, delays, and confusion.
If carefully implemented, however, the reforms could significantly strengthen efficiency within Uganda’s justice system. Ultimately, court users judge the justice system not only by the correctness of judgments delivered, but also by administrative efficiency, predictability, and accountability.