Wakilii

Akright Projects Ltd v Shelter Afrique (Miscellaneous Application No. 0630 of 2024)

High Court · [2025] UGCOMMC 276 · 2025 Application Dismissed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Application arising from Civil Suit No. 249 of 2010 seeking determination of outstanding decretal sum and contempt finding
Decision
Application substantially dismissed; court ordered account reconciliation within 45 days and property re-valuation within 90 days; Respondent prohibited from charging interest on undisputed decretal sum

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 court held that the decretal sum in Civil Suit No. 249 of 2010 is not limited to USD 743,129.23 because the loan account reconciliation expressly anticipated in the Consent Judgment has not been conducted. The Respondent cannot charge interest on the undisputed sum of USD 743,129.23 after the date of the Consent Judgment as no such provision was included in that judgment. No contempt of court was found, as the Respondent made genuine efforts to comply with the re-valuation order despite not seeking court assistance earlier. The court ordered both parties to complete the account reconciliation within 45 days and the property re-valuation within 90 days.

Outcome

Application substantially dismissed; court ordered account reconciliation within 45 days and property re-valuation within 90 days; Respondent prohibited from charging interest on undisputed decretal sum

Facts

Akright Projects Ltd borrowed USD 1,500,000 from Shelter Afrique under a securitised loan agreement dated 31 March 2005, secured by mortgage over several properties. The Applicant defaulted and the parties entered a Consent Judgment in Civil Suit No. 249 of 2010 establishing an undisputed debt of USD 1,473,108.73 and providing for reconciliation to determine any additional disputed sum. The Applicant paid part of the undisputed sum, leaving a balance of USD 743,129.23. Execution by attachment and sale was attempted but set aside in Misc. Application No. 235 of 2012, with the court ordering re-valuation of the mortgaged properties before re-sale. From September 2016 to the date of this application, neither the account reconciliation nor the re-valuation had been completed. The Applicant brought this application seeking determination that the decretal sum is limited to USD 743,129.23 and a finding of contempt against the Respondent for failing to conduct the re-valuation.

Issues

  1. Whether the decretal sum in Civil Suit No. 249 of 2010 is limited to USD 743,129.23.
  2. Whether there has been contempt of the court orders in Misc. Application No. 235 of 2012 and, if so, by whom.
  3. What reliefs are available to the parties.

Orders

  • The Applicant and the Respondent shall jointly conduct a reconciliation of the Applicant's loan account in accordance with Clauses 2, 5 and 6 of the Consent Judgment in Civil Suit No. 249 of 2010 within 45 days from the date hereof.
  • The Respondent shall conduct a valuation of the mortgaged properties in accordance with the Ruling of this Court in Misc. Application No. 235 of 2012 within 90 days from the date hereof.
  • The Applicant shall avail the Respondent with its total cooperation and other resources necessary to carry the order in (ii) above to full effect.
  • Should orders in (i), (ii) and (iii) above not be satisfied, the party at fault shall be liable to contempt of court proceedings and punishment.
  • The Respondent shall not tabulate and charge interest on the sum of USD 743,129.23 which is the undisputed decretal sum thus far in Civil Suit No. 249 of 2010.
  • The Respondent is awarded 80% of the costs of this application.

Rules and key headnotes

Consent Judgments — Interpretation — Terms Must Be Strictly Applied
A consent judgment finally determines the scope of rights exercisable by the parties and must be interpreted according to its express terms. A party cannot approbate a consent judgment by enforcing part of it while simultaneously reprobating it by acting outside its terms. Without the consent judgment being set aside or varied through a formal application, it is unlawful for a party to abandon its express wording and retreat to rights available under the underlying contract.
Interest — Accrual After Consent Judgment — Express Agreement Required
Where a consent judgment establishes an undisputed debt and a payment plan but does not expressly provide for continued accrual of interest on that debt in the event of default, the court cannot read such a provision into the judgment. Interest continues to accrue only where the parties have expressly agreed to it in the consent judgment. The question is determined by the terms of the consent judgment alone, not by considerations of equity or fairness.
Contempt of Court — Requirements — Good Faith Efforts as Defence
For an application for contempt of court to succeed, the applicant must establish: existence of a lawful court order; knowledge of the order by the alleged contemnor; the contemnor's ability to comply; and the contemnor's failure to comply. Even where these requirements are satisfied, the court may decline to find contempt if the alleged contemnor shows that he or she acted in good faith and was taking reasonable steps towards compliance. The remedy of contempt is one of last resort which ought to be used with great restraint.
Execution — Duty of Decree Holder — Seeking Court Assistance
Where a decree holder encounters difficulties in executing a court order due to lack of cooperation from the judgment debtor or other practical obstacles, the decree holder has a duty to apply to the court for further orders to cure the lacuna or to vary the existing orders. Prolonged inaction over many years without seeking the court's intervention to resolve execution difficulties is unacceptable and may disentitle the decree holder to certain remedies.
Clean Hands Doctrine — Applicant's Own Non-Compliance
A party who has failed to comply with a judgment of the court for many years and has a history of abusing the court process by filing suits to secure revised payment plans which it then defaults on does not have clean hands to call for the court to sanction the other party for non-compliance with a court order. The equitable doctrine of clean hands may be considered in determining whether to grant discretionary relief such as a finding of contempt.

Legislation cited (6)

Cases cited (5)

  • Richard Odoi Adome v Uganda Electricity Generation Company Ltd (High Court Miscellaneous Application No. 1088 of 2022)
  • Morris v Crown Office [1970] 1 All ER 1079 at 1097
  • Florence Dawaru v Angumale Albino and Another (High Court Miscellaneous Application No. 0096 of 2016)
  • Betty Kizito v Dickson Nsubuga and 6 Others (Supreme Court Civil Application Nos. 25 and 26 of 2021)
  • Okwonga George and Another v Okello James Harrison (High Court Miscellaneous Application No. 132 of 2021)

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Akright Projects Ltd v Shelter Afrique (Miscellaneous Application No. 0630 of 2024) [2025] UGCommC 276 (31 July 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.