Wakilii

Feed the Children LimitedUganda Limited v Olukutukei and 2 Others (HC Miscellaneous Application No. 943 of 2019)

High Court · [2021] UGHCLD 106 · 2021 Application Granted AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Application for review and setting aside of consent judgment arising from two consolidated civil suits
Decision
Consent judgment set aside; matter to proceed as applied for consolidation

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

The Court held that a consent judgment entered with a non-existent legal entity constitutes an error apparent on the face of the record warranting review under section 83 of the Civil Procedure Act. The applicant company was found to be an aggrieved party having suffered a legal grievance. Evidence showed the third respondent had ceased to exist before the consent was entered, creating glaring irregalities. Applying the Makula International principle that illegalities once brought to court's attention cannot be allowed to stand, the consent judgment was set aside.

Outcome

Consent judgment set aside; matter to proceed as applied for consolidation

Facts

Feed the Children Uganda Limited applied to review and set aside consent judgments entered in Civil Suit No. 748 of 2006 and Civil Suit No. 113 of 2011. The applicant discovered after entering the consent that the third respondent, Feed the Children Larry Jones International Ministries Inc, had ceased to exist as a legal entity. A notice of cessation of business filed on 21 March 2005 showed the third respondent ceased operations from 28 January 2005. The consent judgments were nevertheless entered with the third respondent as a party. The first and second respondents did not oppose the application. The third respondent opposed, with conflicting affidavits about its legal status. The NGO Board did not respond to court's request for clarification on the third respondent's status.

Issues

  1. Whether the application discloses grounds upon which the Court may review and set aside the consent judgment in Civil Suit No. 748 of 2006 and Civil Suit No. 113 of 2011
  2. Whether the Applicant is an aggrieved party within the meaning of section 83 of the Civil Procedure Act
  3. Whether there is a mistake or error apparent on the face of the record
  4. Whether the Applicant is entitled to the remedies sought

Orders

  • Application granted.
  • Consent judgment and decree in Civil Suit No. 113 of 2011 reviewed and set aside.
  • Costs awarded to the Applicant.

Rules and key headnotes

Review of Judgment — Aggrieved Person — Legal Grievance
An aggrieved person under section 83 of the Civil Procedure Act means a person who has suffered a legal grievance, being a person against whom a decision has been pronounced which has wrongfully deprived him of something or wrongfully affected his title, not merely a person disappointed by the outcome.
Review of Judgment — Error Apparent on Record — Non-Existent Legal Entity
Where a consent judgment is entered with a party that had ceased to exist as a legal entity before the consent was concluded, this constitutes an error apparent on the face of the record justifying review under section 83 of the Civil Procedure Act.
Illegality — Court's Duty — Consent Judgments
An illegality once brought to the attention of court cannot be allowed to stand, even where the illegality affects a consent judgment, and the court has power under section 33 of the Judicature Act to grant relief to resolve controversies arising from such illegalities.

Legislation cited (4)

Cases cited (4)

  • Ladark Abdalla Mohammed Hussein v Griffths Isingoma Kakuoza & 2 Others (SCCA No. 08 of 1995)
  • Ex parte Sidebotham, In re Sidebotham (1880) 14 Ch D 458
  • Re Nakivubo Chemists (1979) HCB
  • Makula International v His Eminence Cardinal Wamala Nsubuga

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Feed_the_Children_LimitedUganda_Limited_v_Olukutukei_and_2_Others_(HC_Miscellaneous_Application_No._943_of_2019)_[2021]_UGHCLD_106_(10_August_2021)
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.