Wakilii

Jubilee Estates Ltd v Zion Construction Ltd & 4 Ors (Miscellaneous Cause No. 38 of 2018)

High Court · [2019] UGHCLD 331 · 2019 Application Granted — Consent Judgment Set Aside AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Application to review and set aside a consent judgment entered in Civil Suit No. 231 of 2018
Decision
Consent judgment set aside; main suit to proceed with all parties

Observed later treatment

Cited — treatment unverified cited in 2 (treatment unverified) Sequitur — Uganda’s citator · Derived from citing cases in the Wakilii corpus — not an assertion that this case is good law.

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.

No adverse treatment recorded Cited 2 times with no adverse treatment recorded; not yet tested on the merits. Derived from citing cases in the Wakilii corpus — a deterministic signal, not legal advice.

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 where a co-defendant is added to a suit as a necessary party to determine all issues and avoid multiplicity of suits, a consent judgment entered amongst other parties that distributes the entire disputed property without regard to that co-defendant's claim constitutes collusion and sufficient cause for review and setting aside under O.46 r.1 of the Civil Procedure Rules. The applicant demonstrated sufficient cause for review and setting aside of the consent judgment.

Outcome

Consent judgment set aside; main suit to proceed with all parties

Facts

The 1st Respondent sued the 2nd, 3rd, 4th and 5th Respondents in Civil Suit No. 231 of 2018, claiming recovery of approximately 240 acres of land comprised in Block 38 Plot 16 Busiro, Muguluka, Wakiso District. The applicant successfully applied to be joined as a co-defendant on ground of being an equitable owner of approximately 116 acres forming part of the disputed land, having purchased from the 2nd and 3rd Respondents. The applicant filed a written statement of defence and counterclaim. Before determination of the suit, the respondents reached a consent agreement distributing the suit land amongst themselves, which was entered as a consent judgment on 11 September 2018 without the applicant's knowledge or participation. The applicant sought to review and set aside the consent judgment, arguing that its terms defeated the applicant's equitable interest and was entered by collusion of the respondents in disregard of the applicant's interest.

Issues

  1. Whether the applicant demonstrated sufficient cause for review and setting aside of the consent judgment entered on 11 September 2018.
  2. Whether it was necessary for the applicant to be party to the consent agreement reached by the respondents.
  3. Whether the consent judgment was reached by collusion amongst the respondents to the prejudice of the applicant's proprietary interest.

Orders

  • Application allowed.
  • Consent judgment dated 11 September 2018 between the 1st Respondent and the 2nd, 3rd, 4th and 5th Respondents is reviewed and set aside.
  • Costs of this application to abide in the main cause.

Rules and key headnotes

Civil Procedure — Review of Judgments — Grounds for Review — Sufficient Cause
A consent judgment may be reviewed and set aside where there is sufficient cause, which includes fraud, collusion, an agreement contrary to the policy of the court, or consent given without sufficient material facts or in misapprehension or ignorance of material facts, or for any other reason which would enable the court to set aside an agreement.
Civil Procedure — Joinder of Parties — Co-defendant — Effect on Consent Judgment
Where a party is added as a co-defendant under O.1 r.10(2) of the Civil Procedure Rules as a necessary party whose presence is necessary to enable the court to adequately resolve all questions related to the suit while avoiding multiplicity of suits, a plaintiff cannot properly compromise the suit with other defendants in isolation of that co-defendant where the co-defendant's rights stand opposed to the plaintiff's claims.
Civil Procedure — Consent Judgments — Collusion — Distribution of Disputed Property Excluding Co-defendant
Where parties to a suit, with knowledge of a co-defendant's claim to disputed property, enter a consent judgment distributing the entire property amongst themselves without regard to the co-defendant's claim, this constitutes collusion and provides sufficient cause for review and setting aside of the consent judgment.
Civil Procedure — Burden of Proof — Uncontroverted Affidavit Evidence
Where certain facts are sworn to in an affidavit and the opposing party fails to file a reply, the burden to deny those facts is on the opposing party and if they do not deny them, those facts are presumed to have been accepted.
Civil Procedure — Joinder of Parties — Co-plaintiff versus Co-defendant Distinction
A party is added as a co-plaintiff when the plaintiff does not dispute the right of the co-plaintiff to the decree which might be passed, but where the plaintiff disputes the right of a party to have an interest in the property being claimed, that party should be properly joined as a defendant and not as a co-plaintiff because it is only when joined as a defendant that an issue can legitimately be raised between them.

Legislation cited (9)

Cases cited (15)

  • Samwiri Massa v Rose Achen [1978] HCB 297
  • Makerere University v St Mark Education Institute Ltd and Others [1994] KALR 26
  • Eridadi Ahimbisibwe v World Food Programme and Others [1998] KALR 32
  • Kalyesubula Fenekansi v Luwero District Land Board and Others (Miscellaneous Application No. 367 of 2011)
  • Erunasani Kivumbi and 3 Others v Registrar of Titles (Miscellaneous Application No. 38 of 2018)
  • Kamanda Bukenya v Edith Nakandi and Others (Consolidated Miscellaneous Application No. 775 of 2017 and Miscellaneous Application No. 1075 of 2017)
  • Attorney General and Another v James Mark Kamoga and Another (Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 8 of 2004)
  • Siraje Walakira v Muwayire Bbale and Mijka Sebugwawo (High Court Civil Revision No. 018 of 2012)
  • Hirani v Kassam (1952) EA 131
  • Ken Group of Companies Ltd v Standard Chartered Bank and 2 Others (High Court Miscellaneous Application No. 116 of 2012)
  • George William Kateregga v Commissioner Land Registration and Others (High Court Civil Suit No. 131)
  • Hannington Wasswa v Maria Onyango Ochola and 3 Others (Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 22 of 1993)
  • Bank of Uganda and Others v Basajjabalaba Hides and Skins Ltd (High Court Miscellaneous Application No. 566 of 2008)
  • Katamba Phillip and Others v Magala Ronald (High Court Arbitration Cause No. 003 of 2007)
  • Taabu Peter v Wanyama Paul (High Court Civil Appeal No. 172 of 2012)

Cases citing this judgment (2)

How later Ugandan judgments in the Wakilii corpus have cited this case. Treatment labels come from Sequitur — Uganda’s citator — each backed by a verbatim span from the citing judgment, and are not an assertion that this case is, or is not, good law.

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Jubilee_Estates_Ltd_Vs_Zion_Construction_Ltd_&_4_Ors_(Miscellaneous_Cause_No._38_of_2018)_[2019]_UGHCLD_331_(5_June_2019)
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.