Wakilii

Bet City (U) Limited and Another v Swangz Avenue (U) Limited (Civil Miscellaneous Application No. 1177 of 2020)

High Court · [2021] UGCOMMC 46 · 2021 Application Dismissed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Application to review and set aside a consent judgment and stay execution arising from Civil Suit No. 521 of 2019
Decision
Application dismissed for lack of supporting evidence after affidavit in support was struck out

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

Application to review and set aside a consent judgment dismissed where the applicants' supporting affidavit contained central falsehoods that could not be proven. The court held that affidavits containing obvious falsehoods render the entire affidavit suspect and an application based on such an affidavit must fail. Without a supporting affidavit, the application collapsed for lack of evidence. Costs awarded to the respondent.

Outcome

Application dismissed for lack of supporting evidence after affidavit in support was struck out

Facts

The applicants sought to review and set aside a consent judgment entered on 5 February 2019 in Civil Suit No. 521 of 2019. Under the consent judgment, the first applicant (Bet City) agreed to pay the respondent (Swangz Avenue) an aggregate sum of UGX 183,433,100 as full and final settlement, with the second applicant (Jamal Sultan) and another director acting as guarantors. The applicants claimed they had paid the full amount and discovered only later that the directors were guarantors. The respondent opposed the application, presenting evidence that only the first instalment had been paid and a substantial balance remained outstanding. The respondent further showed that both directors had signed every page of the consent judgment, including pages explicitly naming them as guarantors.

Issues

  1. Whether the Affidavit in Support of the Application should be struck out for being riddled with falsehoods?
  2. Whether the consent judgment should be reviewed and set aside?
  3. What remedies are available for the parties in the circumstances?

Orders

  • The Applicants' Affidavit in support is disregarded for containing falsehoods.
  • The application is dismissed.
  • Costs of the application are awarded to the Respondent.

Rules and key headnotes

Civil Procedure — Affidavits — False Statements — Effect on Application
Where an affidavit in support of an application contains obvious falsehoods that are central to the applicant's case and the applicant fails to prove the facts deposed to, the entire affidavit must be disregarded and the application based on such affidavit must fail.
Evidence — Affidavit Evidence — Personal Knowledge — Order XIX Rule 3(1)
Affidavits must be confined to such facts as the deponent is able of his or her own knowledge to prove. Where a deponent makes allegations without attaching evidence to prove the same and the opposing party presents contradictory evidence which is not refuted in rejoinder, the opposing party's account must be accepted.
Contract Law — Consent Judgments — Binding Effect — Signature
A party to a consent judgment is bound by their signature to the document whether they read it or fully understood its terms or not. A claim to have only later discovered terms that were expressly stated in a document the party signed on every page constitutes a falsehood.

Legislation cited (4)

Cases cited (5)

  • Tom Mukalazi v Davis Kisule (1995) KALR 860
  • L'Estrange v Graucob Ltd (1934) 2 KB 394
  • Anthony Okello v Ojok B'LEO & Ors (Miscellaneous Application No. 26 of 2006)
  • Bitaitana v Kananura (1972) HCB
  • Joseph Mulenga v Photo Focus (U) Ltd (1996) VI KALR 19

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Bet City (U) Limited and Another v Swangz Avenue (U) Limited (Civil Miscellaneous Application No. 1177 of 2020) [2021] UGCommC 46 (14 July 2021)
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.