Betuco (U) Limited & Another v Barclays Bank of Uganda Limited & 3 Others (Civil Appeal 1 of 2017)

Supreme Court · [2018] UGSC 66 · 2018 Appeal Dismissed ✦ AI-generated summary ↓ Download

Jurisdiction

Uganda

Case Type

Second civil appeal from the Court of Appeal's dismissal of an appeal against the High Court's refusal to set aside a consent judgment.

Decision

Appeal dismissed; consent judgment upheld, with the 2nd appellant required to pay the outstanding US$15.6 million.

The full judgment

Read the complete, verbatim text of this judgment.

Cited — treatment unverified cited in 5 (treatment unverified) Derived from citing cases in the Wakilii corpus — not an assertion that this case is good law.

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 Supreme Court dismissed a second appeal challenging a consent judgment. It held the Court of Appeal properly exercised its discretion to refuse a further adjournment after about ten adjournments over six and a half years; the constitutional right to legal representation cannot be abused to force delay. Grounds not addressed in the conferencing notes or oral submissions were properly treated as abandoned, and a new ground cannot be raised on second appeal without leave. The Court of Appeal had adequately re-evaluated the evidence. A consent judgment binds the parties unless vitiated by fraud, mistake, misapprehension or contravention of court policy; none being present and the judgment partly performed, there was no basis to set it aside.

Facts

The 1st and 2nd appellants were customers of the 1st respondent bank. In 2005 the 1st appellant borrowed UGX 3.2 billion, and in 2006 the 2nd appellant borrowed US$13.5 million. Both defaulted, and the bank commenced foreclosure of the mortgage and debenture securities, appointing the 2nd and 3rd respondents as joint receivers and managers; the 4th respondent secured the premises. The appellants sued to restrain realisation of the securities (HCCS No. 40 of 2008) and the respondents counterclaimed. After mediation before Justice Kiryabwire, the parties signed a consent judgment on 25 March 2009, under which the 1st appellant agreed to pay UGX 4.5 billion and the 2nd appellant US$15.6 million in instalments. The appellants then applied to set aside the consent judgment, alleging mistake/misrepresentation and defective mediation; the trial judge dismissed the application. The 1st appellant later paid its UGX 4.5 billion and its security was released, but the 2nd appellant's US$15.6 million remained unpaid. The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, and the appellants appealed to the Supreme Court.

Issues

Whether the respondents' supplementary record of appeal should be expunged for non-compliance with the Supreme Court Rules.
Whether the Court of Appeal denied the appellants their constitutional right to legal representation by refusing a further adjournment.
Whether the Court of Appeal erred in dismissing grounds 1, 2 and 4 of the appeal before it.
Whether the Court of Appeal failed in its duty to re-evaluate the evidence on record.
Whether the consent judgment was a nullity at law and ought to have been set aside.

Orders

Preliminary objection to the supplementary record of appeal dismissed.
Appeal dismissed.
Costs awarded to the 1st respondent in this Court and the courts below.

Key headnotes

Civil Procedure — Adjournments — Sufficient Cause and Judicial Discretion

An adjournment is not granted as of right but only upon sufficient cause shown, in the judicious and reasonable exercise of the court's discretion, having regard to the party's conduct and diligence.

Constitutional Law — Fair Hearing — Right to Legal Representation under Article 28(1)

The right to a fair and speedy hearing and to legal representation under Article 28(1) of the Constitution cannot be abused by litigants to force delay; a court does not breach that right by proceeding after affording a party adequate opportunity to engage counsel.

Civil Procedure — Appeals — Abandonment of Unargued Grounds

Grounds of appeal that are neither addressed in a party's conferencing notes nor in oral submissions are properly treated as abandoned and dismissed.

Civil Procedure — Second Appeal — Raising New Grounds Requires Leave

A party may not argue that a decision should be reversed or varied on a ground not specified in the memorandum of appeal without leave of the court, as prohibited by Rule 98(a) of the Supreme Court Rules.

Civil Procedure — First Appellate Court — Re-evaluation of Evidence

There is no set format to which re-evaluation of evidence by a first appellate court must conform; the extent and manner of re-evaluation depend on the circumstances of each case and the style adopted by that court.

Contract Law — Consent Judgments — Grounds for Setting Aside

A consent judgment made with the consent of counsel is binding on the parties and will not be set aside unless obtained by fraud or collusion, entered into without sufficient material facts, in misapprehension or ignorance of material facts, or in contravention of the policy of the court.

Civil Procedure — Second Appeal — Concurrent Findings of Fact

On a second appeal the court is precluded from questioning findings of fact of the trial court where there was evidence to support them, and may interfere only where there was no evidence to support a finding, that being a question of law.

Legislation cited (11)

Constitution of Uganda 1995 art.28(1)
Judicature (Supreme Court Rules) Directions S.I. 13-11 r.82
Judicature (Supreme Court Rules) Directions S.I. 13-11 r.83
Judicature (Supreme Court Rules) Directions S.I. 13-11 r.86
Judicature (Supreme Court Rules) Directions S.I. 13-11 r.98(a)
Civil Procedure Rules O.17 r.1
Judicature (Court of Appeal) Rules r.30(1)
Judicature (Court of Appeal) Rules r.86(1)
Judicature (Commercial Court Division) Mediation Rules 2007 r.19
Judicature (Commercial Court Division) Mediation Rules 2007 r.20
Judicature (Commercial Court Division) Mediation Rules 2007 r.21

Cases cited (7)

Kifamunte Henry v Uganda (Criminal Appeal No. 10 of 1997)
Famous Cycle Agencies Ltd v Mansukhlal Ramji Karia (Civil Appeal No. 16 of 1994)
Attorney General and Uganda Land Commission v James Mark Kamoga (Civil Appeal No. 8 of 2004)
Hirani v Kassam [1952] EA 131
Brooke Bond Liebig (T) Ltd v Mallya [1975] EA 266
Mohamed Allibhai v W.E. Bukenya and Another (Civil Appeal No. 56 of 1996)
Uganda Breweries Limited v Uganda Railways Corporation (Civil Appeal No. 6 of 2001)

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.