CTM Uganda Ltd v Allmuss Properties Uganda Ltd & 2 Ors (Miscellaneous Application No. 806 of 2015)
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 freely negotiated and signed by an authorised managing director will not be set aside absent fraud, misrepresentation, or material non-disclosure. The court held that parties are bound by contracts they freely enter, that a managing director duly authorised by board resolution is the mind and will of the company, and that outsiders dealing with a company are entitled under the indoor management rule to assume internal requirements have been complied with. The application to set aside was dismissed with costs.
Outcome
Consent judgment upheld; application to set aside dismissed
Facts
CTM Uganda Limited filed Civil Suit 467 of 2013 against the respondents. The parties settled the matter by consent judgment dated 20 February 2015, wherein CTM agreed to pay USD 1,650,000 by 17 October 2015, failing which land (LRV 4293, Folio 9, Plot 26-28 Kibuli Road, Nsambya) valued at USD 4,000,000 and a 45% shareholding in Allmuss would be transferred to Italtile Ceramics. The consent judgment was signed by CTM's advocates and its managing director, Gregory Magezi, who had been authorised by board resolution dated 12 November 2005 to transact in shares and execute documents relating to financial matters. CTM failed to pay and began effectuating the transfers, passing board resolutions and transferring shares. On 31 August 2015, eight months after the consent and seventeen days before the payment deadline, Magezi wrote expressing discontent and seeking revaluation. On 7 October 2015, ten days before the deadline, CTM applied to set aside the consent judgment, alleging negligence of counsel, unjust enrichment, and economic duress.
Issues
- Whether the consent judgment dated 20 February 2015 should be set aside on grounds of unconscionability and unjust enrichment.
- Whether the applicant's counsel failed to properly guide the applicant, such that counsel's negligence should not be visited on the client.
- Whether the consent judgment was obtained through economic duress.
- Whether the acts of the applicant's managing director, Gregory Magezi, in signing the consent judgment bound the applicant company.
Orders
- Application dismissed.
- Costs awarded to the respondents.
Rules and key headnotes
Cases cited (9)
- Hirani v Karman [1952] EA 131
- Muddu Oils Refinery Ltd & Another v Centenary Rural Development Bank (CERUDEB) & 5 Others (HCCS No. 159 of 2009)
- Stockloser v Johnson [1954] 1 All ER 630
- L Schuler AG v Wickman Machine Tool Sales Ltd [1974] AC 234
- El Ajou v Dollar Land Holdings [1994] 2 All ER 685
- Lennard's Carrying Co Ltd v Asiatic Petroleum Co Ltd [1915] AC 705
- R v Andrews Weatherfoil Ltd [1972] 1 WLR 118
- Royal British Bank v Turquand (1856) 6 E&B 327
- Mahony v East Holyford Mining Co (1875) LR 7 HL 869
Full judgment
The original judgment as reported. Read the original PDF before relying on any passage.