Wakilii

East African General Insurance Co. Ltd v East African General Insurance Co. Ltd and Ors (Civil Application 2 of 2002)

Supreme Court · [2002] UGSC 16 · 2002 Application Dismissed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Application by notice of motion before a single judge of the Supreme Court to amend a consent judgment
Decision
Application dismissed for want of jurisdiction with costs

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 vary or amend a consent judgment entered into by all parties and approved by another single judge of the court. Such a judgment can only be challenged by reference to a bench of three Justices under section 9(2) of the Judicature Statute 1966 and Rule 51(1)(b) of the Rules of the Court. Rule 53(1), relied on by the applicant, was held inapplicable because none of its conditions (extension of time or permission to do an act) fitted the facts. The preliminary objection to jurisdiction was upheld and the application dismissed with costs.

Outcome

Application dismissed for want of jurisdiction with costs

Facts

The parties had entered into a consent judgment dated 6 December 2001, agreed to and signed by counsel for all parties and approved by Oder, J.S.C., sitting as a single judge of the Supreme Court. The 2nd applicant subsequently brought an application by motion under Rule 41 of the Rules of the Court seeking to amend clauses (c) and (d) of that consent judgment so as to reflect resolutions passed by the majority post-1972 EAGEN shareholders at a general meeting held on 18 December 2001. The application came before Kanyeihamba, J.S.C., a single judge. The 1st applicant's counsel raised a preliminary objection contending the single judge lacked jurisdiction to vary a consent judgment approved by another single judge. The application was supported by the affidavit of Haji Lubega Kaddanabbi and opposed by that of Maria Wamala.

Issues

  1. Whether a single judge of the Supreme Court has jurisdiction to hear an application to vary or amend a consent judgment approved by another single judge of the court.

Orders

  • Application dismissed.
  • Costs awarded to the applicant represented by M/s Katende and Ssempebwa & Co. Advocates.

Rules and key headnotes

Civil Procedure — Consent Judgments — Variation by a Single Judge
A consent judgment agreed to by all parties and approved by a single judge of the Supreme Court cannot be varied or amended by another single judge of that court, particularly where one or more parties to the consent judgment objects to the variation.
Civil Procedure — Jurisdiction — Reference of a Single Judge's Decision to a Bench of Three Justices
A party dissatisfied with the decision of a single Justice of the Supreme Court must have the matter determined by a bench of three Justices under section 9(2) of the Judicature Statute 1966 and Rule 51(1)(b) of the Rules of the Court; a single judge has no jurisdiction to discharge or reverse such a decision.
Statutory Interpretation — Rules of Court — Scope of Rule 53(1) of the Supreme Court Rules
Rule 53(1) of the Rules of the Supreme Court permits variation or rescission of an order made by a single judge only where the order extended time for doing an act otherwise than to a specific date, or permitted the doing of an act without specifying a date; it does not confer jurisdiction to vary a consent judgment.

Legislation cited (6)

  • Rules of the Supreme Court 1966 r.41
  • Rules of the Supreme Court 1966 r.51(1)(b)
  • Rules of the Supreme Court 1966 r.51(2)
  • Rules of the Supreme Court 1966 r.53(1)
  • Civil Procedure Act s.9(2)
  • Judicature Statute 1966 s.9(2)

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

East African General Insurance Co. Ltd v East African General Insurance Co. Ltd and Ors (Civil Application 2 of 2002) [2002] UGSC 16 (26 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.