Wakilii

Attorney General and Another v Konyen and 9 Others (HCT-00-LD-MA 963 of 2016)

High Court · [2024] UGHCLD 223 · 2024 Application Granted AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Application to review and set aside judgment on admission entered in Civil Suit No.46 of 2012
Decision
Judgment on admission set aside; matter presumably to proceed to full hearing

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 set aside a judgment on admission requiring the Government to pay UGX 7.4 billion compensation, holding that the admission lacked the Attorney General's express authority. A clear and unambiguous admission by the Government was absent, as neither the letter from the Divestiture Committee nor the valuation report authorised admission of liability for that sum. The court found sufficient reason under s.82 Civil Procedure Act to review and set aside the judgment.

Outcome

Judgment on admission set aside; matter presumably to proceed to full hearing

Facts

The Attorney General and the Departed Asians Property Custodian Board applied to set aside a judgment on admission entered on 12 July 2016 in Civil Suit No.46 of 2012. The impugned judgment required Government to pay the respondents UGX 7.4 billion as compensation for property comprised in Plots 135-141 Mbuya Hill, Esmail Road. The admission was made in court by Ms. Kiyingi Josephine, Principal State Attorney, who stated that the Attorney General was prepared to concede to the valuation figure. Subsequently, officials from the Attorney General's Chambers swore affidavits stating that the admission was made without the Attorney General's express authority. The court reviewed a letter dated 6 October 2014 from the Divestiture Committee and a valuation report dated 2 February 2016, neither of which stated that Government had admitted liability to pay the sum claimed.

Issues

  1. Whether the applicants satisfied the conditions for setting aside the judgment on admission entered against them on 12 July 2016.
  2. Whether the court was functus officio and unable to review its own judgment on admission.

Orders

  • The judgment on admission entered in Civil Suit No.46 of 2012 on 12 July 2016, requiring Government to pay UGX 7,400,000,000 to the respondents, is reviewed and set aside under s.82 of the Civil Procedure Act and Order 46 rule 1 of the Civil Procedure Rules.
  • Each party shall bear its own costs.

Rules and key headnotes

Civil Procedure — Review of Judgment — Grounds for Review — Judgment Not Functus Officio
A court is not functus officio in respect of its own judgment where an aggrieved party applies for review under s.82 of the Civil Procedure Act and Order 46 rule 1 of the Civil Procedure Rules.
Civil Procedure — Judgment on Admission — Requirements for Entry
Before entering a judgment on admission under Order 13 rule 6 of the Civil Procedure Rules, the court must be satisfied that the admission is clear, plain, obvious and unambiguous, leaving no room for doubt.
Administrative Law — Attorney General — Authority to Admit Liability — Express Authorisation Required
Where a State Attorney purports to admit Government liability in court proceedings, such admission must be supported by express authority from the Attorney General; absent such authority, the admission is not binding on Government and may be set aside on review.

Legislation cited (3)

Cases cited (2)

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Attorney_General_and_Another_v_Konyen_and_9_Others_(HCT-00-LD-MA_963_of_2016)_[2024]_UGHCLD_223_(23_September_2024)
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.