Attorney General of the Republic of South Sedan v Yu Sung Construction (Application No.1 of 2021)
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 a consent judgment may be reviewed and set aside where the Court failed to satisfy itself as to the lawfulness of the consent agreement before recording it, constituting a manifest error on the face of the record. The doctrine of res judicata is not absolute and may be impugned where consent is underpinned by fraud, mistake, or misrepresentation. The Court set aside the consent judgment and granted the Applicant leave to file a response to the underlying reference.
Outcome
Consent judgment set aside; matter remitted for hearing on the merits
Facts
Yu Sung Construction filed Reference No. 21 of 2019 seeking to recover USD 46,403,228.26 from the Attorney General of South Sudan for alleged non-payment under a construction contract for a military training complex. The Respondent (Attorney General) failed to file a response within the statutory period. On 31 August 2020, Mr Biong appeared on behalf of the Attorney General and was granted leave to file a response out of time. Instead, on 26 November 2020, the parties filed a consent agreement signed by Mr Biong, which was recorded and endorsed by the Court. The Attorney General subsequently filed this application alleging that Mr Biong lacked authority to enter the consent on their behalf and that the consent was fraudulently obtained.
Issues
- Whether the consent judgment can be set aside notwithstanding that it was duly endorsed and recorded by the Court.
- Whether the Applicant has locus standi in this matter.
- Whether the matter is res judicata and whether the Court is functus officio.
- Whether the change of Advocate should be allowed.
- Whether the consent decree was lawfully derived and construed.
Orders
- This matter is not res judicata.
- The Court is not functus officio.
- The Applicant has locus standi in this matter.
- Representation of the Applicant by the law firm of Macharia-Mwangi & Njeru Advocates is hereby validated.
- The law firm of Macharia-Mwangi & Njeru Advocates be entered on record as the duly instructed Advocates for the Applicant.
- The Court's omission to satisfy itself that the Consent Agreement was lawful is a manifest mistake and error on the face of record.
- The Consent Order and Decree issued by this court on 26th November 2020 be and is hereby set aside in its entirety.
- The time for filing a Response in Reference No. 21 of 2019 be and is hereby extended.
- The Respondent therein is granted unconditional leave to file its Response within 30 days from the date hereof.
- Costs of the Application shall abide the outcome of the Reference.
Rules and key headnotes
Cases cited (8)
- Magdeline Makinta v Fostina Nkwe (Court of Appeal No. 26 of 2001)
- Odneste Monanyana v The State (Criminal Appeal No. 8 of 2021)
- Moyo v Rex (469 of 2015) [2016] SZHC 35
- Bafakeng Tribe v Impala Platinum Ltd & Others 1999 (3) SA 517
- Amtim Capital v Appliance Recycling Centre of America (2012) 298 O.A.C 75
- Christopher Mutikila v Attorney General of Tanzania and Another (Appeal No. 8 of 2007)
- FX Mubuuke v Uganda Electricity Board (HCMA No. 98 of 2005)
- Edison Kanyabwera v Pastori Tumwebaze (Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 6 of 2004)
Full judgment
The original judgment as reported. Read the original PDF before relying on any passage.