Wakilii

East African General Insurance Co. Ltd v East African General Insurance Co. Ltd and Others (Civil Application No. 2 2002)

Supreme Court · [2002] UGSC 56 · 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 previously approved by another single judge
Decision
Application dismissed for want of jurisdiction; matter would proceed, if at all, by reference to a bench of three justices

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

On a preliminary objection, the single judge held that he had no jurisdiction to hear an application to amend a consent judgment that had been entered into by all parties and approved by another single judge of the Supreme Court. Rule 53(1) of the Rules of the court does not confer such jurisdiction, as it applies only to orders extending time or permitting an act to be done. A party dissatisfied with the decision of a single judge must instead make a reference to a bench of three justices under s.9(2) of the Judicature Statute 1966 and Rule 51 of the Rules. The application was accordingly improperly before the single judge and was dismissed with costs.

Outcome

Application dismissed for want of jurisdiction; matter would proceed, if at all, by reference to a bench of three justices

Facts

The 1st applicant company sought, by notice of motion under rule 41 of the Rules of the Supreme Court, to amend a judgment dated 6 December 2001. That judgment was a consent judgment agreed to and signed by counsel for all parties and approved by Justice Oder, JSC, sitting as a single judge of the Supreme Court. The applicant wished the consent judgment's clauses (c) and (d) amended to reflect resolutions passed by a majority of post-1972 EAGEN shareholders at a general meeting held on 18 December 2001, and asked that there be no costs. A 2nd applicant represented certain shares in the company. The application was opposed on the ground that a single judge had no 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 an application to vary or amend a consent judgment entered into and 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

  • Preliminary objection upheld.
  • Application dismissed for want of jurisdiction.
  • Costs of the application 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 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 the parties, entered into court and approved by another single judge of the court.
Civil Procedure — Rules of the Supreme Court — Scope of Rule 53(1)
Rule 53(1) of the Rules of the Supreme Court does not confer jurisdiction to vary a consent judgment, as 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.
Civil Procedure — Reference from a Single Judge — 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 by way of reference under section 9(2) of the Judicature Statute 1966 and Rule 51 of the Rules of the court, and not by a further application to a single judge.

Legislation cited (6)

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

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 Others (Civil Application No. 2 2002) [2002] UGSC 56 (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.