Wakilii

Kabuye and Another v N Shan and Company Limited and 2 Others (Miscellaneous Application No. 974 of 2019)

High Court · [2022] UGHCLD 25 · 2022 Application Dismissed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Application to set aside or review a consent judgment arising from Civil Suit No. 80 of 2008
Decision
Application to set aside or review consent judgment dismissed 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

The High Court dismissed the application to set aside or review a consent judgment. The court held that the notice of motion was defective for lack of counsel's signature as required by Order 52 Rule 1 of the Civil Procedure Rules. Further, the applicants failed to establish that they were aggrieved persons or that there was any error apparent on the face of the record, which are essential requirements for review under Section 83 of the Civil Procedure Act. The application did not meet the legal threshold for review.

Outcome

Application to set aside or review consent judgment dismissed with costs

Facts

The applicants sought to set aside or review a consent judgment executed on 7 March 2015 arising from Civil Suit No. 80 of 2008. The application was supported by affidavits from both applicants. The 1st and 2nd respondents opposed the application through affidavits in reply. Both parties raised preliminary objections: the applicants objected to the 1st respondent's affidavit on grounds of falsehood, while the 1st respondent objected that the application violated the rules for review. The 2nd respondent raised a preliminary objection regarding procedural defects in the notice of motion, specifically that it was not signed by counsel as required by the Civil Procedure Rules.

Issues

  1. Whether the applicants' notice of motion complied with the procedural requirements under Order 52 Rule 1 of the Civil Procedure Rules.
  2. Whether the applicants satisfied the legal requirements for review under Section 83 of the Civil Procedure Act and Order 9 Rule 12 and Order 50 Rule 2 of the Civil Procedure Rules.
  3. Whether the applicants qualified as aggrieved persons entitled to seek review of the consent judgment.

Orders

  • Application dismissed.
  • Costs awarded to the 1st and 2nd Respondents.

Rules and key headnotes

Civil Procedure — Notice of Motion — Requirement for Counsel's Signature
A notice of motion must be signed by counsel to authenticate it as required by Order 52 Rule 1 of the Civil Procedure Rules, and failure to comply with this requirement renders the application defective.
Civil Procedure — Review — Requirements for Review Application
An application for review under Section 83 of the Civil Procedure Act requires the applicant to establish that they are an aggrieved person and that there is an error apparent on the face of the record.
Civil Procedure — Review — Definition of Aggrieved Person
An aggrieved person entitled to seek review is one who has been deprived of their property and must have a nexus with the subject matter in dispute showing that the property is theirs but is being taken from them as a result of the legal proceedings, thereby causing them to suffer a legal grievance.

Legislation cited (5)

Cases cited (4)

  • Mohammed Bukenya Albai v W. E Bukenya and Another (Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 56 of 1996)
  • Re Nakivubo Chemists (U) Ltd; in the matter of the Companies Act (1979) HCB.12
  • Kandu versus Bever Ginning Co. Ltd, Allot & Others 192 Air NAS. Paragraph 185
  • Kaloli Tabuta v Transroad (U) Ltd (Miscellaneous Application No. 478 of 2019)

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Kabuye_and_Another_v_N_Shan_and_Company_Limited_and_2_Others_(Miscellaneous_Application_No._974_of_2019)_[2022]_UGHCLD_25_(22_February_2022)
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.