Wakilii

Attorney General v Bumero Estates Limited (Civil Application 25 of 2019)

Supreme Court · [2019] UGSC 72 · 2019 Application Allowed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Application to the Supreme Court to set aside a consent variation order made in execution of Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 13 of 2007
Decision
Application allowed; the consent variation order set aside and expunged from the record; no order as to costs.

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 set aside a consent variation order by which the Government and Bumero Estates had agreed compensation of UGX 23.128 billion in lieu of evicting squatters under the Supreme Court decree in Civil Appeal No. 13 of 2007. Parties cannot vary a court decree by consent; only an appellate court may vary a judgment, and a Supreme Court decision is final save for the slip rule and review. The registrar who certified the order acted without jurisdiction and ultra vires, as registrars have no power under Order 50 of the Civil Procedure Act to vary court orders. The order also bound strangers to the original suit and excluded the squatters who were parties, rendering it an illegality and void ab initio. Application allowed, no order as to costs.

Outcome

Application allowed; the consent variation order set aside and expunged from the record; no order as to costs.

Facts

Bumero Estates Limited sued trespassers (HCCS No. 122 of 2002) and was confirmed the rightful owner of land at Bumero; the trespassers' appeals to the Court of Appeal and Supreme Court (Civil Appeal No. 13 of 2007) failed, and eviction orders were granted. When eviction began in 2011, the occupants petitioned the President, who directed Government to compensate for the encroached land instead. The Chief Government Valuer assessed the land (LRV 1289 Folio 14, about 2,400 hectares) at UGX 23,128,000,000. The Attorney General and Bumero Estates then entered a consent variation order, certified in court, providing that Government pay that sum within two financial years in lieu of eviction, with Bumero surrendering the land. Government paid UGX 3 billion but withheld the balance after complaints that Bumero, which had given a power of attorney to Samaco International Ltd and allegedly lacked valid title, was not the proper party to be paid. The Attorney General applied to set the consent variation order aside.

Issues

  1. Whether the affidavit in rejoinder introduced new facts and should be struck off the record.
  2. Whether the consent variation order purporting to vary the decree of the Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No. 13 of 2007 was valid, given that parties cannot vary a court decree by consent and the order was certified by a registrar.

Orders

  • The consent variation order is set aside and expunged from the court record.
  • The application is allowed.
  • No order as to costs, the Attorney General having also partaken in the illegality.

Rules and key headnotes

Consent Orders — Variation of Decrees — Power to Vary by Consent
Parties cannot vary a court order or decree by consent; the sanctity of a judgment is paramount and a decree may only be varied by an appellate court.
Finality of Supreme Court Judgments — Slip Rule and Review
As the final court of record, a Supreme Court decision determines the parties' rights conclusively and can only be varied in the special circumstances of the slip rule and review under the Rules of the Court, where the parties and issues remain the same.
Powers of a Registrar — Order 50 Civil Procedure Act — Jurisdiction
A registrar's powers derive from Order 50 of the Civil Procedure Act and do not include power to vary a court order; a registrar who certifies a variation of a court decree acts without jurisdiction and ultra vires, rendering the result an illegality.
Illegality — Duty of Court — May Be Raised at Any Time
An illegality once brought to the court's attention overrides all questions of pleading and procedure and cannot be sanctioned by the court; it may be raised at any time, including in an affidavit in rejoinder.
Affidavits in Rejoinder — Scope — Introduction of New Facts
An affidavit in rejoinder is confined to matters pleaded in the affidavit in support and answered in the affidavit in reply; it cannot introduce fresh issues, and offending portions are ordinarily struck out save those that expose an illegality.
Consent Judgments — Grounds to Set Aside
A consent judgment is binding and may only be set aside on a ground that would vitiate an agreement, such as fraud, mistake, misapprehension, or where the consent contravenes the policy of the court.

Legislation cited (10)

Cases cited (21)

  • Attorney General v James Mark Kamoga (Civil Appeal No. 8 of 2004)
  • Hirani v Kasam (1952) EA 131
  • Brooke Bond Ltd v Mallya (1975) EA 266
  • Muhamed Allibhai v W.E. Bukenya (Civil Appeal No. 56 of 1996)
  • Bisset v Wilkinson [1927] AC 177
  • Horsfall v Thomas (1862) 1 H & C 90
  • Bailey v Angove Pty Ltd [2016] UKSC 47
  • Frith v Frith [1906] AC 254
  • CCB v MIB & Agri Seed Co Ltd (Civil Case No. 34 of 2012)
  • Mutembuli Yusuf v Nangwomu Moses Musamba (Election Petition Appeal No. 43 of 2016)
  • Stanbic Bank Ltd v Uganda Crocs Ltd (Civil Appeal No. 4 of 2004)
  • Specioza Kalungi & ors vs AG HCCS
  • Col. (Rtd) Dr. Kizza Besigye v Yoweri Museveni Kaguta (Presidential Election Petition No. 1 of 2006)
  • National Social Security Fund v Alcon International (Civil Appeal No. 15 of 2009)
  • Makula International Ltd v Cardinal Nsubuga (Civil Appeal No. 4 of 1981)
  • Bulasiyo Kkonde v Buladina Nankya (Civil Appeal No. 7 of 1980)
  • Sinba (K) Ltd v Uganda Broadcasting Corporation (Civil Appeal No. 3 of 2014)
  • British American Tobacco (U) Ltd v Sedrach Mwijakukibwa (Civil Appeal No. 1 of 2012)
  • Lakhamshi Brothers Ltd v Raja & Sons (1996) EA 313
  • Hilda Wilson Namusoke v Owalla's Home Investment Trust (E.A) (Civil Appeal No. 15 of 2017)
  • Nilefos Minerals Ltd v Attorney General (Misc. Cause No. 184 of 2014)

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Attorney General v Bumero Estates Limited (Civil Application 25 of 2019) [2019] UGSC 72 (3 December 2019)
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.