Wakilii

Bulasio Konde v Bulandina Nankya & Anor (Civil Appeal No. 7 of 1980)

Court of Appeal · [1981] UGCA 1 · 1981 Appeal Dismissed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Civil appeal from a High Court ruling setting aside a consent order; on hearing, parties sought to enter a fresh consent order reinstating the earlier reversed judgment.
Decision
Appeal dismissed with costs; consent order refused, leaving the High Court decision setting aside the earlier consent judgment standing.

Observed later treatment

Treatment recorded in citing cases followed in 1 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.

Good law Followed in 1 case and applied in 0 cases, with no adverse treatment recorded. Citations steady — 9 citing cases on record, 3 in the most recent three data years. 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

The Court of Appeal declined to record a proposed consent order reinstating a previously set-aside judgment. It held that an appeal cannot be allowed by consent, since doing so would reverse the decision below without hearing the appeal and would allow parties to determine issues of law. The proposed order was also illegal because it distributed the estate contrary to section 28(1)(c) of the Succession Act, which entitled the sole dependant to 99% of the estate, giving her only 12%. The court further held that a compromise negotiated without the knowledge of opposing counsel and their clients is not binding. As the appeal raised points of law and could not be argued, it was dismissed with costs.

Outcome

Appeal dismissed with costs; consent order refused, leaving the High Court decision setting aside the earlier consent judgment standing.

Facts

Erina Namirembe, a wealthy woman, died intestate in 1977 leaving no child or husband. Her sole surviving dependant was her elderly mother, the first plaintiff, who under section 28(1)(c) of the Succession Act was entitled to 99% of the estate. The defendant, describing himself as step-brother, obtained letters of administration in 1978 without disclosing the sole dependant and contrary to sections 201, 202 and 246 of the Act. The plaintiffs' efforts to revoke the grant failed on procedural grounds, then proceeded by suit. A temporary injunction restrained the defendant, and the Administrator General was appointed administrator pendente lite, but the defendant refused to comply and continued to intermeddle with the estate. Counsel then recorded a consent order giving the first plaintiff only 12% and allowing the defendant to distribute 88% at his discretion, and a further consent order reversing the High Court in the appeal. The High Court set aside the consent order, and the defendant appealed.

Issues

  1. Whether an appellate court can allow an appeal by consent so as to reverse the judgment of the court below without hearing the appeal.
  2. Whether the court should record a consent order that contravenes statutory provisions on distribution of an intestate's estate.
  3. Whether a settlement reached without the knowledge of counsel representing the parties is binding.

Orders

  • Court declined to enter the proposed consent order.
  • Appeal dismissed with costs.

Rules and key headnotes

Appeals — Consent Orders — Whether Appeal Can Be Allowed by Consent
An appellate court cannot allow an appeal by consent, for that would reverse the judgment of the court below without hearing the appeal; only an appellate court, after hearing the case, can reverse a decision.
Consent Orders — Issues of Law Not Subject to Compromise
Issues of law cannot be the subject of consent orders; the law is a matter for decision by the court after considering the case and not for agreement between the parties.
Intestate Succession — Distribution Contrary to Statute — Section 28(1)(c) Succession Act
A consent order that distributes an intestate's estate contrary to the statutory entitlements fixed by section 28(1)(c) of the Succession Act is illegal and will not be recorded, as it would amount to altering statute law by agreement of the parties.
Settlement — Compromise Negotiated Without Knowledge of Opposing Counsel
It is a wrong practice for counsel seeking to compromise a case to bargain with the litigants of the opposing side without the knowledge of counsel representing them; a settlement is binding only where agreed to by both counsel in consultation with their clients.

Legislation cited (7)

Cases cited (3)

  • Lees v Motor Insurers' Bureau [1953] 1 WLR 620
  • Lloyd v. Rossleigh Ltd. (1961) R.V.R.448
  • Slaney v Kean [1970] Ch 243

Cases citing this judgment (8)

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.

Bulasio Konde v Bulandina Nankya & Anor (Civil Appeal No. 7 of 1980) [1981] UGCA 1 (14 August 1981)
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.