Wakilii

Akello & Others v Egole & 7 Others (Miscellaneous Application 105 of 2024)

High Court · [2025] UGHC 12 · 2025 Application Dismissed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Application for review of consent order arising from Miscellaneous Application No. 065 of 2015
Decision
Application dismissed; impugned consent order of 18 December 2015 remains in force

Observed later treatment

No later-treatment classification is recorded for this judgment.

Citator coverage is limited to judgments in the Wakilii corpus and source-matched treatment records. Absence of a signal is not an assertion that the case remains 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 High Court dismissed the application to review and set aside a consent order that added respondents as plaintiffs to an earlier decree. The Court held that the omission of the Attorney General as a party rendered the application incompetent as it would condemn the Attorney General unheard contrary to constitutional fair hearing rights. On the merits, the Court found that the applicants failed to demonstrate they were aggrieved persons, as the addition of the respondents did not deprive them of their entitlements under the decree. The applicants also failed to prove discovery of new and important evidence, and no grounds existed to set aside the consent order as a contract.

Outcome

Application dismissed; impugned consent order of 18 December 2015 remains in force

Facts

The applicant Akello Betty sued the Attorney General in HCCS No. 006 of 2011 in a representative capacity on behalf of 580 individuals seeking compensation for livestock and property lost during insurgency in Lango Sub-Region between 1986-2006. Judgment was entered in her favour on 2 May 2014 awarding compensation. Subsequently, in Miscellaneous Application No. 065 of 2015, the respondents applied to be added as plaintiffs to the concluded suit, alleging they were beneficiaries of the decree. The Attorney General consented to their addition, and a consent order was executed and endorsed by court on 18 December 2015. The applicant then sought to review and set aside this consent order, alleging the respondents held conflicted public offices and their addition prejudiced over 44,936 claimants.

Issues

  1. Whether the applicant has made a case for review and setting aside of the consent order.
  2. Whether the omission of the Attorney General as a party to the application is fatal.
  3. Whether the applicant and her colleagues are persons aggrieved by the consent order.
  4. Whether there has been discovery of new and important matter of evidence justifying review.
  5. Whether grounds exist to set aside the consent order under section 98 of the Civil Procedure Act.

Orders

  • Application struck out for failure to join the Attorney General as a party.
  • Application dismissed on the merits.
  • Each party to bear its own costs.

Rules and key headnotes

Civil Procedure — Parties — Necessary Parties — Omission of Parties to Review Application
Where an application seeks to review and set aside a consent order executed between parties, all parties to the original consent must be joined to the review application; failure to join a party to the consent condemns that party unheard contrary to the constitutional right to fair hearing under Articles 28(1) and 44(c) of the Constitution 1995.
Civil Procedure — Review — Person Aggrieved — Locus Standi
A person seeking review must be a person aggrieved within the meaning of section 82 of the Civil Procedure Act, that is, a person who has suffered a legal grievance or against whom a decision has been pronounced which has wrongly deprived him of something or wrongly affected his title; disappointment of an expected benefit is insufficient.
Civil Procedure — Review — Discovery of New Evidence — Requirements
An application for review on the ground of discovery of new and important matter of evidence under Order 46 rule 1(1)(a) of the Civil Procedure Rules must satisfy three conditions: the evidence must have been discovered after the exercise of due diligence; it must not have been within the applicant's knowledge at the time the order was made; and the evidence must be of such a character that if it had been given in the suit, it might possibly have altered the judgment.
Civil Procedure — Consent Orders — Setting Aside — Grounds
A consent order has contractual and binding effect and can only be set aside on grounds which would justify the setting aside of a contract, namely: fraud, collusion, an agreement contrary to court policy, consent given without sufficient material facts, misapprehension or ignorance of material facts, mistake, misrepresentation, or lack of consensus between the parties.
Civil Procedure — Review — Consent Orders — Appealability and Reviewability
Although a consent order or decree is not appealable under section 67(2) of the Civil Procedure Act, it is nevertheless capable of being reviewed under section 82 of the Act where an applicant satisfies the conditions under Order 46 rule 1 of the Civil Procedure Rules.

Legislation cited (5)

Cases cited (14)

  • John Imaniraguha v Uganda Revenue Authority (Miscellaneous Application No. 2770 of 2023)
  • Kimita & Another v Wakibiru [1967-1985] 1 EA 229
  • Attorney General & Uganda Land Commission v James Mark Kamoga & James Kamala (Civil Appeal No. 8 of 2004)
  • Administrator of the Estate of the Late George William Kabugo v Dr. Twinobuhugiro & 2 Others (Civil Appeal No. 55 of 2016)
  • Re Nakivubo Chemist (1979) HCB 12
  • Mohamed Allibhai v W.E Bukenya Mukasa & Another (Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 56 of 1996)
  • Ex Parte Side Botham in Re Side Botham (1880) 14 Ch. D 458
  • Ex Parte Official Receiver in Re Reed Bowen & Company
  • The Attorney General of Gambia Vs. N'jie (1961) AC 617
  • Dison Okumu & 8 Others v Uganda Electricity Transmission Company Ltd & 6 Others (Civil Appeal No. 18 of 2020)
  • Olara v Omony (Miscellaneous Application No. 1 of 2022)
  • Hirani Vs. Kassam (1952) 19 EACA 131
  • Wasike Vs. Wamboko [1982-88] KAR 625
  • Brooke Bond Liebig (T) Ltd Vs. Mallya [1975] EA 266

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

The original judgment as reported. Read the original PDF before relying on any passage.

Akello & Others v Egole & 7 Others (Miscellaneous Application 105 of 2024) [2025] UGHC 12 (17 January 2025)
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.