Wakilii

Attorney General v Katende Ssempebwa and Company Advocates and Others (Miscellaneous Application 629 of 2019)

High Court · [2024] UGHCCD 2 · 2024 Application Granted AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Application for review and setting aside of a Certificate of Order issued in MA No. 665 of 2018 arising from Civil Suit No. 527 of 2004
Decision
Certificate of Order against Government set aside; related Miscellaneous Cause No. 267 of 2019 dismissed with costs to the Applicant

Observed later treatment

Cited — treatment unverified cited in 2 (treatment unverified) Sequitur — Uganda’s citator · Derived from citing cases in the Wakilii corpus — not an assertion that this case is good law.

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.

No adverse treatment recorded Cited 2 times with no adverse treatment recorded; not yet tested on the merits. Derived from citing cases in the Wakilii corpus — a deterministic signal, not legal advice.

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

Held that the Attorney General was erroneously added as a party to a Certificate of Order issued in MA No. 665 of 2018 without being a party to the underlying application, proceedings, or consent order. The Certificate of Order against Government was reviewed and set aside. An error apparent on the face of the record exists where a party is made liable under a consent order to which it was neither a party nor given an opportunity to be heard.

Outcome

Certificate of Order against Government set aside; related Miscellaneous Cause No. 267 of 2019 dismissed with costs to the Applicant

Facts

The 3rd Respondents filed Civil Suit No. 527 of 2004 against the Attorney General seeking payment of gratuity for ex-servicemen. Judgment was entered in 2011 in favour of the 3rd Respondents. The 1st and 2nd Respondents (advocates for the 3rd Respondents) filed an advocate/client bill of costs in MA No. 665 of 2018. On 14 January 2019, the parties entered into a consent for payment of legal fees totalling UGX 11,328,000,000 inclusive of VAT. A Certificate of Order was then extracted directing the Attorney General to pay the legal fees out of the judgment proceeds. The Attorney General contended that it was never a party to MA No. 665 of 2018, was not served with proceedings, and had no opportunity to be heard before being made liable under the consent order.

Issues

  1. Whether there are grounds for the Court to review and set aside the Certificate of Order issued on 14 January 2019 in Miscellaneous Application No. 665 of 2018.

Orders

  • Application allowed.
  • Certificate of Order against Government issued in Miscellaneous Application No. 665 of 2018 reviewed and set aside.
  • Miscellaneous Cause No. 267 of 2019 dismissed from court with costs.
  • Respondents to pay costs of this application.

Rules and key headnotes

Civil Procedure — Review of Judgments and Orders — Error Apparent on the Face of the Record
An error apparent on the face of the record must be self-evident and not require extraneous matter or elaborate argument to demonstrate its incorrectness. It is an error which strikes one on mere looking at the record and is so manifest and clear that no court would permit it to remain on record.
Civil Procedure — Consent Orders — Parties to Consent
A party who was not part of the pleadings, proceedings, or consent negotiations in an application cannot be validly added as a party to a Certificate of Order arising from that consent. Where a party is made liable under a consent order without being afforded an opportunity to be heard, the order is liable to be set aside for error apparent on the face of the record.
Civil Procedure — Audi Alteram Partem — Right to be Heard
A court order which makes a party liable without affording that party an opportunity to participate in the proceedings or to be heard constitutes a fundamental procedural error justifying review and setting aside of the order.

Legislation cited (11)

Cases cited (8)

  • Ojijo Pascal v Geoffrey Brown (Miscellaneous Application No. 758 of 2017)
  • Nyamogo & Nyamogo Advocates v Kago [2001] 2 EA 173
  • Florence Dawaru v Anguiwale & Another (High Court Miscellaneous Application No. 96 of 2016)
  • FX Mubuuke v Uganda Electricity Board (High Court Miscellaneous Application No. 98 of 2005)
  • Kyambadde & Another v Uganda Electricity Transmission Company Ltd & 3 Others (Miscellaneous Application No. 234 of 2012) [2012] UGHC 137
  • Noe Namata v Nsololo sub parish (Miscellaneous Application No. 28 of 2019)
  • Independent Medico Legal Unit v Attorney General of the Republic of Kenya (East African Court of Justice Application No. 2 of 2012)
  • Edison Kanyabwera v Pistori Tumwebaze (Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 6 of 2004)

Cases citing this judgment (2)

How later Ugandan judgments in the Wakilii corpus have cited this case. Treatment labels come from Sequitur — Uganda’s citator — each backed by a verbatim span from the citing judgment, and are not an assertion that this case is, or is not, good law.

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Attorney General v Katende Ssempebwa and Company Advocates and Others (Miscellaneous Application 629 of 2019) [2024] UGHCCD 2 (8 January 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.