Wakilii

Bako and Others v Attorney General and Another (HCT-00-CV-MA-No. 0628-2009)

High Court · [2012] UGHC 467 · 2012 Application Dismissed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Application to review and set aside a consent variation order arising from Civil Suit No. 1006 of 1997
Decision
Application dismissed with costs to the 2nd respondent; leave to appeal granted

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

Held that counsel acting for the plaintiffs had full authority to enter the consent variation order waiving interest on the decretal sum, as their instructions had not been terminated and no limitation on their authority had been communicated to the respondents. The consent variation order did not reverse the court's judgment but merely altered the figures in the award. Application dismissed.

Outcome

Application dismissed with costs to the 2nd respondent; leave to appeal granted

Facts

The applicants were among 108 primary teachers in Kampala who were found surplus in a 1994 rationalisation exercise and rendered redundant. They sued successfully in HCCS No. 1006 of 1997, obtaining judgment for salary arrears, general damages of UGX 10,000,000 per plaintiff, and 25% interest per annum. After the Attorney General filed a notice of appeal, negotiations led to a consent variation order dated 27 January 2006 that provided for payment of salary arrears, general damages, and costs, but waived the interest award. The applicants, now represented by new counsel, applied to review and set aside the consent variation order, arguing that their former lawyers had no authority to waive the interest component.

Issues

  1. Whether there was an apparent error on the face of the record in the consent variation order.
  2. Whether the consent variation order was entered through misrepresentation or illegality.
  3. Whether counsel had authority to waive interest on the decretal sum by entering a consent variation order.
  4. Whether parties can by consent vary a judgment of court.

Orders

  • Application dismissed.
  • Costs awarded to the 2nd respondent.
  • Leave to appeal granted.

Rules and key headnotes

Civil Procedure — Authority of Counsel — Implied Authority to Compromise
Counsel acting for a party in litigation has full control over the conduct of the trial and has apparent authority to compromise all matters connected with the action, so long as instructions have not been terminated and no limitation on that authority has been brought to the notice of the other side.
Civil Procedure — Consent Orders — Variation of Judgment
While parties cannot by consent reverse a judgment of court or allow an appeal, they may agree to vary figures in an award without reversing the decision itself.
Civil Procedure — Abuse of Process — Multiple Applications by Different Groups of Plaintiffs
Where numerous plaintiffs successfully sue and then split into different groups instructing new lawyers to raise new issues after settlement, this may constitute an abuse of the process of court.

Cases cited (6)

  • Blasio Konde v Bulandina and Numwa Bombokka (Court of Appeal No. 7 of 1980)
  • Saroje Gandhesha v Trans Load Ltd (Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 13 of 2009)
  • B.M. Technical Services v Francis Y. Rugunda (Miscellaneous Application No. 75 of 1998)
  • Welsh Vs Roe 1918-19 ALL ER 620
  • Lloyd s Rossleigh Ltd [1961] RVR 488
  • Slaney Vs Kean 1970 Ch. 243

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Bako and Others v Attorney General and Another (HCT-00-CV-MA-No. 0628-2009) [2012] UGHC 467 (12 June 2012)
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.