Wakilii

Francis Jaya Salongo v Mukono District Council & Anor (HCT-00-CC-MA 496 of 2006)

High Court · [2006] UGCOMMC 64 · 2006 Application Dismissed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Application arising from consent decree in a civil suit for rent arrears and premises renovation
Decision
Application dismissed; applicant must pursue additional rent claim through separate substantive proceedings if desired

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

Held that Section 92 of the Civil Procedure Act applies only where a decree has been varied or reversed, not where a decree remains unperformed. Non-performance of a decree does not vary the decree; the decree remains intact and must be enforced through lawful means. The applicant's claim for additional rent constituted a substantive new claim requiring trial, not an application for restitution under Section 92. Application dismissed with costs.

Outcome

Application dismissed; applicant must pursue additional rent claim through separate substantive proceedings if desired

Facts

The applicant was the successful party in a 1997 suit for rent arrears and premises renovation against the respondents. A consent decree dated 10 August 2001 provided that the respondents would pay rent for 39 months from 1 January 1995 at UGX 160,000 per month and renovate the premises by 31 July 2001. The decree was not performed as agreed. The applicant returned to court with an application under Sections 92 and 98 of the Civil Procedure Act. Two reliefs were agreed upon. The contested relief sought rent at UGX 160,000 per month from 1 August 2001 until handing over of the premises.

Issues

  1. Whether Section 92 of the Civil Procedure Act applies to circumstances where a decree has not been varied or reversed but merely not performed.
  2. Whether the applicant could claim additional rent for the period after the consent decree through the application under Section 92.

Orders

  • Application dismissed with costs to the second respondent.

Rules and key headnotes

Civil Procedure — Restitution — Application of Section 92 Civil Procedure Act — Scope Limited to Varied or Reversed Decrees
Section 92 of the Civil Procedure Act applies only to instances where a decree has been varied or reversed, and does not extend to circumstances where a decree remains unperformed but has not been varied or reversed.
Civil Procedure — Decree Enforcement — Non-Performance Distinguished from Variation
Non-performance of a decree does not vary the decree in any way. The decree remains intact, and the party seeking performance must enforce it through the manner provided by law rather than treating non-performance as a variation.
Civil Procedure — Substantive Claims — New Relief Requiring Trial
Where an applicant seeks an award that was not made in the original consent decree, this constitutes a substantive claim that cannot be dealt with through an application under Section 92 of the Civil Procedure Act and must be established through trial, particularly where the claim is contested.

Legislation cited (2)

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Francis Jaya Salongo v Mukono District Council & Anor (HCT-00-CC-MA 496 of 2006) [2006] UGCommC 64 (27 September 2006)
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.