Wakilii

Sentiba and Others v Inspectorate of Government (Civil Appeal 14 of 2007)

Supreme Court · [2008] UGSC 28 · 2008 Appeal Dismissed ✦ AI-generated summary ↓ Download
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Civil appeal from the High Court's dismissal of preliminary objections to an application for review of a consent judgment.
Decision
Appeal dismissed; the High Court's dismissal of the preliminary objections stands and the application for review proceeds.

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 dismissed the appeal. On the statute-bar issue, it held that section 19(1)(a) and (c) of the Inspectorate of Government Act does not prevent the Inspectorate from moving the court to review its own consent judgment, because the review is conducted by the court, not the Inspectorate. On locus standi, the Inspectorate, having capacity to sue and be sued, was an aggrieved party entitled under section 82 of the Civil Procedure Act and Order 46 to apply for review even though it was not a party to the suit. On the affidavits, defects in the jurat were mere technicalities that did not vitiate the application. Appeal dismissed with costs.

Facts

The appellants, former shareholders of Nyanza Textile Ltd owning 1% of the shares, sued in a representative capacity for all the shareholders for compensation arising from the divestiture of Nytil. The suit against the Attorney General culminated in a consent judgment on 21 January 2007. The appellants obtained a garnishee nisi against Stanbic Bank to attach money from the Divestiture Account. Before the order could be made absolute, the Inspectorate of Government applied to the High Court to review or set aside the consent judgment, contending that it was likely to cause financial loss to government, prejudiced other shareholders who had been left out, and amounted to abuse of office. The appellants raised preliminary objections that the application was statute barred, that the Inspectorate had no locus standi, and that the application was supported by defective affidavits. Kasule J dismissed the objections, and the appellants appealed.

Issues

  1. Whether the respondent's application to set aside the consent judgment was statute barred under section 19(1)(a) and (c) of the Inspectorate of Government Act.
  2. Whether the respondent had locus standi to file the application for review.
  3. Whether the application could be sustained given the alleged defective affidavits supporting it.

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed.
  • Costs of the appeal awarded to the respondent in this Court and in the trial court.

Key headnotes

Inspectorate of Government — Power to seek review of court decisions — Section 19(1)(a) and (c) of the Inspectorate of Government Act
Section 19(1)(a) and (c) of the Inspectorate of Government Act, which bars the Inspectorate from questioning or reviewing decisions of any court or civil matters before court, does not prevent the Inspectorate from moving the court itself to review its own decision, since in such a case it is the court, and not the Inspectorate, that questions or reviews the decision.
Review of judgments — Locus standi of an aggrieved non-party — Section 82 Civil Procedure Act and Order 46
Under section 82 of the Civil Procedure Act and Order 46 rules 1 and 2 of the Civil Procedure Rules, any aggrieved person may apply to review a judgment, and such a person need not be a party to the proceedings; the Inspectorate of Government, with capacity to sue and be sued, is an aggrieved party where a consent judgment may occasion loss to government.
Setting aside consent judgments — Order 9 rule 12 — Persons with a direct interest
Order 9 rule 12 (formerly rule 9) of the Civil Procedure Rules empowers the court to set aside or vary a consent judgment entered by the registrar, and is not restricted to parties to the suit but extends to any person with a direct interest in the matter who has been injuriously affected.
Affidavits — Defective jurat — Section 6 Oaths Act — Article 126(2)(e) of the Constitution
Failure to state in the jurat the place where an affidavit was sworn, contrary to section 6 of the Oaths Act, is a mere technicality where the place can be ascertained from the body of the affidavit and no penalty is prescribed; such a defect does not vitiate the affidavit and must not deter the court from administering substantive justice under Article 126(2)(e) of the Constitution.
Affidavits — Preparation by public officers — Section 66 Advocates Act
The restrictions in section 66 of the Advocates Act on the preparation of documents by unqualified persons do not apply to public officers; accordingly, an affidavit drawn by a government ministry rather than by the Attorney General is not on that ground incompetent.

Legislation cited (18)

  • Inspectorate of Government Act 2002 s.19(1)(a)
  • Inspectorate of Government Act 2002 s.19(1)(c)
  • Inspectorate of Government Act 2002 s.9
  • Inspectorate of Government Act 2002 s.10
  • Constitution of Uganda 1995 art.225
  • Constitution of Uganda 1995 art.226
  • Constitution of Uganda 1995 art.227
  • Constitution of Uganda 1995 art.230(2)
  • Constitution of Uganda 1995 art.232
  • Constitution of Uganda 1995 art.250
  • Constitution of Uganda 1995 art.126(2)(e)
  • Civil Procedure Act (Cap.71) s.82
  • Civil Procedure Rules Order 46 rules 1 and 2
  • Civil Procedure Rules Order 9 rule 12
  • Government Proceedings Act (Cap.77) s.10
  • Advocates Act s.66(1)(a)
  • Advocates Act s.66(2)
  • Oaths Act s.6

Cases cited (7)

  • Ladak Abdullah Mohamed Hussein v Griffiths Isingoma Kakiiza & 2 Others (Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 8 of 1995)
  • Muhamed Allibhai v Bukenya Musoke & Departed Asian Property Custodian Board (Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 56 of 1996)
  • Inspector General of Government v Kikonda Butema Farm Ltd and Attorney General (Constitutional Application No. 13 of 2006)
  • Kabagambe Asol & 2 Others v Electoral Commission and Dr. Kizza Besigye (Constitutional Petition No. 1 of 2006)
  • Mbogo v Shah (1969) EA 93
  • Jaques v Harrison (1883-4) 12 AC 165
  • Employers Liability Assurance Corporation Ltd v Sedgwick Collins and Company Ltd (1927) AC 95
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.