Wakilii

Basiima and 2 Others (On Behalf of 138 Claimants) v Attorney General and Another (Miscellaneous Application 465 of 2018)

High Court · [2024] UGHCCD 44 · 2024 Application Partly Allowed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Application for review and variation of consent judgment entered in Civil Suit No. 259 of 2014
Decision
Consent judgment varied to include 18 verified claimants; application dismissed in respect of 121 other claimants

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

A consent judgment may be reviewed under Civil Procedure Act s.82 and Order 46 CPR where an error apparent on the face of the record is established. The omission of 31 claimants who were party to the suit and included in the Auditor General's verification report but excluded from the computation of terminal benefits constituted such an error. However, 108 claimants who were not party to the original suit could not seek review as they were not aggrieved persons within the meaning of s.82 CPA. The application succeeded in respect of 18 verified claimants whose terminal benefits totalling UGX 101,687,370 were included in the varied consent judgment.

Outcome

Consent judgment varied to include 18 verified claimants; application dismissed in respect of 121 other claimants

Facts

The applicants, representing 1,675 former workers of Coffee Marketing Board (CMB) in liquidation, entered a consent judgment on 29 July 2015 in Civil Suit No. 259 of 2014 providing for payment of terminal benefits to 1,568 claimants totalling UGX 10,330,013,505 based on an Auditor General verification report dated 13 November 2009. During execution, it was discovered that 31 claimants who were party to the suit and included in the Auditor General's report had been omitted from the computation of terminal benefits, and a further 108 persons who were former CMB workers but not party to the suit had not been included. The applicants brought an application in 2018 seeking review and variation of the consent judgment to include all 139 claimants. A subsequent Auditor General report dated 30 December 2020 verified 18 of the 31 claimants, leaving 13 unverified due to missing personal files or ambiguous name combinations.

Issues

  1. Whether the application disclosed sufficient grounds to review or vary the consent judgment in Civil Suit No. 259 of 2014 entered on 29th July 2015.

Orders

  • The consent judgment dated 29th July 2015 in Civil Suit No. 259 of 2014 is reviewed and varied to include terminal benefits for 18 verified claimants totalling UGX 101,687,370.
  • Each of the 18 claimants named in the table is awarded the sum indicated against their name as terminal benefits.
  • Each of the 18 claimants is awarded UGX 10,000,000 as general damages.
  • Interest at 6% per annum is awarded on the general damages from the date of the order until full payment.
  • The application is dismissed in respect of the 108 claimants who were not party to Civil Suit No. 259 of 2014.
  • The application is dismissed in respect of the 13 claimants who could not be verified by the Auditor General.
  • One-quarter of the costs of the application are awarded to the Applicants to be paid by the 1st Respondent.

Rules and key headnotes

Civil Procedure — Review of Judgment — Consent Judgments — Applicability of Review Jurisdiction
Review jurisdiction under Civil Procedure Act s.82 and Order 46 CPR is applicable to consent judgments, and a party who consents to a decree may be an aggrieved person within the meaning of Order 46 where the consent was induced through illegality, fraud, mistake, or the party was wrongfully deprived of a legal interest.
Civil Procedure — Review of Judgment — Grounds for Review — Error Apparent on Face of Record
An error apparent on the face of the record is an evident error which does not require any extraneous matter to show its incorrectness; it must be an error so manifest and clear that no court would permit such an error to remain on record.
Civil Procedure — Review of Judgment — Consent Judgments — Omission of Parties Within Contemplation
Where parties to a suit were within reasonable contemplation of the parties to a consent judgment and were included in the verification report upon which the consent judgment was based, but their claims were omitted from the computation without explanation, such omission constitutes an error apparent on the face of the record warranting review of the consent judgment.
Civil Procedure — Review of Judgment — Standing — Persons Not Party to Original Suit
Persons who were not party to a suit that has been determined by consent judgment do not qualify as persons aggrieved by the consent decree within the meaning of Civil Procedure Act s.82 and Order 46 CPR, and cannot seek to join a suit that has already been determined even where they could sustain a similar cause of action.
Employment & Labour — Terminal Benefits — Verification Requirement — Unverifiable Claims
Where a consent judgment for payment of terminal benefits provides that payment is to be made in accordance with a specific verification report, the consent judgment cannot be reviewed to include persons whose claims could not be verified in accordance with that report, even if their existence was contemplated at the time of the consent.

Legislation cited (7)

Cases cited (7)

  • FX Mubuke v Uganda Electricity Board (High Court Miscellaneous Application No. 98 of 2005)
  • Kampala District Land Board v Creston Properties Ltd (High Court Miscellaneous Application No. 485 of 2021)
  • Sabiiti Eric v Kampala Capital City Authority (High Court Miscellaneous Application No. 316 of 2017)
  • Betuco (U) Ltd & Another v Barclays Bank & Others (High Court Miscellaneous Application No. 243 of 2009)
  • Ismail Sunderji Hirani v Noorali Esmail Kassam [1952] EA 131
  • Attorney General & Another v James Mark Kamoga & Another (Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 8 of 2004)
  • Edison Kanyabwera v Pastori Tumwebaze (Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 6 of 2004)

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Basiima and 2 Others (On Behalf of 138 Claimants) v Attorney General and Another (Miscellaneous Application 465 of 2018) [2024] UGHCCD 44 (28 March 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.