Wakilii

East African General Co. v East African General Insurance Company and others (Civil Application 2 of 2002)

Supreme Court · [2002] UGSC 49 · 2002 Application Dismissed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Application by notice of motion to a single judge of the Supreme Court to amend a consent judgment previously approved by another single judge
Decision
Application to amend the consent judgment dismissed for want of jurisdiction in a single judge

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 single judge of the Supreme Court has no jurisdiction to hear an application to vary or amend a consent judgment that was agreed by all parties and approved by another single judge of the court. A party dissatisfied with the decision of a single judge must make a reference to a bench of three justices under section 9(2) of the Judicature Statute 1966 and Rule 51 of the Rules of the Supreme Court. Rule 53(1) does not apply to these facts because it governs only orders extending time or permitting acts without a specified date. The supporting affidavits also failed to comply with Rule 51(2). The application was accordingly dismissed with costs.

Outcome

Application to amend the consent judgment dismissed for want of jurisdiction in a single judge

Facts

A consent judgment dated 6 December 2001 was agreed to and signed by counsel for all parties and approved by Hon. Justice Oder, JSC, sitting as a single judge of the Supreme Court. The first applicant brought a notice of motion before a single judge (Kanyeihamba, JSC) under Rule 41 seeking to amend consent clauses (c) and (d) of that judgment to reflect resolutions passed by the majority post-1972 EAGEN shareholders at their general meeting of 18 December 2001. The application was supported by the affidavit of Haji Lubega Kaddunabbi for the first applicant and opposed by the affidavit of Maria Wamala for the second applicant. The respondent raised a preliminary objection that a single judge lacked jurisdiction to vary a consent judgment approved by another single judge.

Issues

  1. Whether a single judge of the Supreme Court has jurisdiction to hear and determine an application to vary or amend a consent judgment approved by another single judge of the court.
  2. Whether Rule 53(1) of the Rules of the Supreme Court confers jurisdiction on a single judge to vary such a consent judgment.

Orders

  • Application dismissed with costs to the applicant represented by M/S Katende & Ssempebwa & Co. Advocates.

Rules and key headnotes

Civil Procedure — Consent Judgments — Variation — Jurisdiction of a Single Judge of the Supreme Court
A single judge of the Supreme Court has no jurisdiction to vary or amend a consent judgment that was agreed to by all parties and approved by another single judge of that court; a party dissatisfied with a single judge's decision must refer the matter to a bench of three justices under section 9(2) of the Judicature Statute 1966 and Rule 51 of the Rules of the Supreme Court.
Statutory Interpretation — Rules of the Supreme Court — Rule 53(1) — Scope
Rule 53(1) of the Rules of the Supreme Court does not confer jurisdiction to vary a consent judgment on the merits; it applies only to orders extending time otherwise than to a specific date or permitting the doing of an act without specifying the date by which it was to be done, and so has no application to an application to amend a consent judgment.

Legislation cited (5)

  • Judicature Statute 1966 s.9(2)
  • Civil Procedure Act s.9(2)
  • Rules of the Supreme Court rule 41
  • Rules of the Supreme Court rule 51
  • Rules of the Supreme Court rule 53

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

East African General Co. v East African General Insurance Company and others (Civil Application 2 of 2002) [2002] UGSC 49 (27 March 2002)
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.