Wakilii

Eng.Opwonya & 22 ors & Attorney General (Civil Appeal No. 72 of 2005)

Court of Appeal · [2020] UGCA 94 · 2020 Appeal Struck Out ✦ AI-generated summary ↓ Download
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Civil appeal from the ruling and directions of the High Court arising from a consent judgment in a representative suit for compensation
Decision
Appeal struck out for want of jurisdiction; each party bears own costs

The full judgment

Read the complete, verbatim text of this judgment.

Sign in to read the full judgment

AI-generated summary. This summary was generated by AI from the full text of the judgment. It may contain errors or omissions — always read the source judgment before relying on it.

Holding

The Court of Appeal held that it had no jurisdiction to entertain the appeal. The directions challenged arose from a consent judgment which, under section 67(2) of the Civil Procedure Act, is not appealable; an aggrieved party's remedy is to apply to vary the consent on grounds that would invalidate an agreement. The consent settlement was indeterminate because compensation amounts were unknown pending verification and valuation, and the directions concerned implementation rather than a determination on framed issues. Implementation of a consent settlement is not a matter arising in execution of a decree that grounds an appeal. The appeal was struck out, each party bearing its own costs.

Facts

The appellants, suing on behalf of plaintiffs in Gulu High Court Civil Suit No. 38 of 2006 and the Acholi War Debt Claimants Association, claimed compensation for livestock and property lost during the northern Uganda conflict. On 11 September 2008 a consent judgment was recorded by which the Government agreed to pay the claimants, subject to verification of individual claims and valuation of livestock. The verification was delayed, allegedly due to inadequate Government funding, and was not completed until 2013. The appellants applied to the High Court for declarations that verification was complete, adoption of their verification report, payment of compensation for verified livestock, general damages and costs. The trial judge, invoking section 98 of the Civil Procedure Act, declined to grant the orders and instead issued directions to harmonise the verification exercise, account for funds already disbursed, involve district leaders, and complete the process by 30 June 2015. Aggrieved by those directions, the appellants appealed to the Court of Appeal.

Issues

  1. Whether the Court of Appeal has jurisdiction to entertain an appeal arising from a consent judgment that remained indeterminate and unimplemented.
  2. Whether directions issued by the trial court to facilitate execution of a consent settlement can be the subject of an appeal.

Orders

  • Appeal struck out.
  • Each party to bear its own costs.

Key headnotes

Appeals — Consent Judgments — Non-appealability
No appeal lies from a decree passed by the court with the consent of the parties, and an appeal cannot lie from the terms of the consent agreement; the aggrieved party's remedy is to apply to vary or set aside the consent on grounds that would invalidate an agreement.
Court of Appeal — Jurisdiction — Indeterminate consent settlement
The Court of Appeal has no jurisdiction to entertain an appeal from an indeterminate consent settlement, and directions concerning the implementation of such a settlement do not constitute an appealable decision or a matter arising in execution of a decree.
Consent Judgments — Setting Aside — Grounds
A consent judgment cannot be set aside or varied except on grounds that would invalidate an agreement between the parties, such as fraud, collusion, mistake, or want of sufficient material facts.
Judgments — Issues — Decision on framed issues
Where a suit is settled by consent before hearing, no issues are framed or determined and there is no decision on each issue, so there is no judgment on the merits from which an appeal can be founded.

Legislation cited (8)

  • Judicature Act Cap 13 s.10
  • Constitution of the Republic of Uganda art.134
  • Civil Procedure Act s.67(2)
  • Civil Procedure Act s.98
  • Civil Procedure Rules Order 15 r.1
  • Civil Procedure Rules Order 15 r.3
  • Civil Procedure Rules Order 21 r.4
  • Civil Procedure Rules Order 21 r.5

Cases cited (4)

  • Hirani v Kassam 19 (EACA) 131
  • Brooke Bond (T) Ltd v Marlya [1975] E.A. 266
  • Purcell v F C Trigell Ltd (trading as Southern Window and General Cleaning Co) and another [1970] 3 All ER 671
  • Huddersfield Banking Co. Ltd v Henry Lister & Son Ltd (1895) 2 Ch D 273
Source: this page presents Wakilii’s issue analysis and metadata for a publicly reported Ugandan judgment. Any AI-generated summary is marked as such. Judgment text is sourced from the Uganda Legal Information Institute (ulii.org). Wakilii is not affiliated with ULII.