Wakilii

Attorney General v Kasule and 1022 and Others (Miscellaneous Application 43 of 2010)

High Court · [2023] UGHCCD 375 · 2023 Application Granted AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Application to review the court's own earlier decision and to set aside a Consent Variation Order arising from a judicial review claim by former Kampala City Council employees
Decision
Attorney General's application allowed; court's earlier ruling reviewed and corrected; Consent Variation Order set aside; respondent application dismissed

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 allowed the Attorney General's application to review its own earlier ruling and set aside a Consent Variation Order on the ground that new material evidence established that many of the respondents had already been fully compensated, remained employed, or were not entitled to the terminal benefits awarded in the original judgment. The court held that the new information satisfied Order 46 Rule 1(b) of the Civil Procedure Rules and rectified errors where the earlier ruling was based on erroneous or insufficient information, vacating all orders against the Attorney General.

Outcome

Attorney General's application allowed; court's earlier ruling reviewed and corrected; Consent Variation Order set aside; respondent application dismissed

Facts

In 2011, Kampala City Council was abolished and replaced by the Kampala Capital City Authority under a new legal framework. Approximately 1,023 former KCC employees claimed they were unlawfully terminated and sought terminal benefits. In April 2018, the High Court ruled in their favour, ordering payment of approximately UGX 80 billion in terminal benefits under the Local Government Act. The parties subsequently entered into a Consent Variation Order in December 2019 for settlement. The Attorney General later discovered through inter-ministerial committee reports that: (i) 616 former workers had already been fully paid and were on the pension payroll; (ii) 330 health workers had never been retrenched and remained employed; (iii) 34 retrenched workers had been fully compensated and rehired; (iv) 38 others had been paid and rehired temporarily; and (v) there were duplications and incorrect inclusions in the claims list. The Attorney General applied to review the court's earlier decision and set aside the Consent Variation Order.

Issues

  1. Whether the application presents sufficient grounds to justify the review of the judgment delivered by this court in Miscellaneous Cause No. 40 of 2012 dated 24 April 2018.
  2. Whether there are sufficient grounds to set aside a Consent Variation Order in Miscellaneous Cause No. 40 of 2020 dated 13 December 2019.
  3. What remedies are available to the parties.

Orders

  • Application No. 1050 of 2020 allowed.
  • The court's earlier ruling in High Court Miscellaneous Cause No. 40 of 2012 reviewed and specific errors rectified.
  • Declaration that it was a mistake to compute respondents' arrears using a different date of termination than 31 July 2012.
  • Declaration that all former KCC health workers that had not been retired are not entitled to any compensation.
  • Declaration that the order compelling compensation for respondents who were fully paid their entitlements and are receiving pensions was against public policy.
  • Declaration that it was an error to order compensation in favour of former KCC health workers when their employment status had never changed.
  • All writs made against the applicant vacated.
  • The Consent Variation Order dated 13 December 2019 wholly set aside.
  • Application No. 43 of 2020 dismissed as moot.
  • Each party to meet their own costs in the two consolidated applications.

Rules and key headnotes

Review of judgments — discovery of new and important material evidence — Order 46 Rule 1(b) Civil Procedure Rules
A court may review its own decision where new and important material evidence is discovered after the decree was passed, provided such evidence was discovered after due diligence and was not within the aggrieved party's knowledge or could not have been produced at the time the decree was given.
Review of judgments — scope and purpose — distinction from appeal
When a court sits to review its own decision, it does not sit as an appellate court. The court's role is limited to checking whether the conditions in Order 46 Rule 1 have been complied with and making relevant and necessary rectifications and corrections. A review is intended to rectify possible mistakes in decisions, not to quash the entire decision.
Consent judgments — grounds for setting aside
A consent judgment may be set aside if it was executed without adequate information, was based on misapprehension or ignorance of material facts, was executed against the laws of the land, was procured by fraud or mistake, or contravened court policy.
Consent Variation Orders — effect and relationship to original judgment
A Consent Variation Order that varies and replaces orders of the court supersedes all previous orders given by the parties. Where the underlying judgment is reviewed and rectified due to newly discovered errors, a Consent Variation Order executed to implement that judgment must also be set aside, as it was premised on erroneous information.
Terminal benefits — entitlement — employees already compensated or still in employment
It is against public policy to order compensation for loss of employment to a person who has already been fully paid their terminal benefits and is receiving a pension, or to a person whose employment status has never changed and who remains on the public payroll.

Legislation cited (7)

Cases cited (12)

  • Mapalala v British Broadcasting Co-operation [2002] 1 EA 132
  • Kampala Capital City Authority v Nibimara Charlese & 10 Ors per SSekana J
  • Ismail Sunderji Hirani v Noorali Esmail Kassam [1952] EA 131
  • Attorney General & Uganda Land Commission v James Mark Kamoga & James Kamala (Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 8 of 2004)
  • Robert Migadde v Musoke Tadeo and 4 Others (High Court Miscellaneous Cause No. 109 of 2017)
  • Ken Group of Companies Ltd v Standard Chartered Bank Limited (U) Ltd (Civil Suit No. 486 of 2007)
  • Huddderfiled Banking Co. Ltd v Henry Lister & Sons Ltd. (1895) 2 ChD p 273 pp 280
  • Attorney General and Another v James Mark Kamoga & Another (Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 8 of 2008)
  • Saroj Gadensha v Transroad Ltd (Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 13 of 2009)
  • Sabiiti Eruic v Kampala Capital City Authority (High Court Miscellaneous Application No. 316 of 2017)
  • Hoima District NGO Forum & 6 Others vs Murungi Catherine & 5 Others Civil Misc. Application N0-Hct (Hoima)-12-Cv-Ma-0013 of 2013
  • Wakiso District Local Government v Serwada Joseph (High Court Civil Appeal No. 66 of 2020)

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Attorney General v Kasule and 1022 and Others (Miscellaneous Application 43 of 2010) [2023] UGHCCD 375 (4 December 2023)
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.