Wakilii

Kamada v Nakandi & Anor (Misc. Application No. 0775 of 2017)

High Court · [2017] UGHCLD 364 · 2017 Consent Order Set Aside AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Application to review and set aside consent judgment entered by Registrar, arising from Civil Suit No. 433 of 2014
Decision
Consent judgment set aside; parties to revert to pre-consent position; main suit to proceed to hearing

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 Registrar lacks jurisdiction to review consent judgments entered by the Registrar — such power belongs to a Judge under Order 46 of the Civil Procedure Rules. The consent judgment was set aside as it was entered irregularly: the matter was part-heard before a Judge who had issued an injunction, the applicant signed without her counsel present, and there was evidence of collusion and misapprehension. However, the applicant Kamada Bukenya was denied leave to join as co-plaintiff, lacking locus as he was not a party to the original suit and had filed a separate suit on the same cause of action.

Outcome

Consent judgment set aside; parties to revert to pre-consent position; main suit to proceed to hearing

Facts

The Registrar of the High Court Land Division entered a consent judgment in Civil Suit No. 433/2015 between Edith Nakandi (1st Respondent) and Umar Katongole (2nd Respondent/4th Defendant). Kamada Bukenya, who had participated as a witness in the suit and who had a separate pending suit (HCCS No. 193/2016) claiming bonafide occupancy of the same land, applied to review and set aside the consent judgment, alleging it affected his interests as a tenant by occupancy. Edith Nakandi also filed a separate application (Misc. Application No. 1075/2017) to set aside the consent judgment, deposing that she signed it in the absence of her counsel, was misled by the 2nd Respondent and his lawyer, and did not understand its terms. The suit was part-heard before a Judge who had issued an injunction restraining dealings with the land pending disposal of the suit.

Issues

  1. Whether the Registrar had jurisdiction to review the consent judgment.
  2. Whether the Registrar had power to enter a consent judgment in a matter that was part-heard before a Judge.
  3. Whether the applicant had locus standi to bring the application for review.
  4. Whether the consent judgment was validly obtained and should be set aside.

Orders

  • The consent judgment entered by the Registrar on 12 May 2017 is set aside.
  • Misc. Application No. 1075/2017 (Edith Nakandi v Administrator General & Others) is granted.
  • All parties to revert to the position as ordered by the trial Judge in HCCS No. 433 of 2015, with the injunction to remain in force until final disposal of the suit.
  • HCCS No. 433 of 2015 to be immediately fixed for further hearing.
  • Umar Katongole (2nd Respondent) is entitled to a refund of all money paid to Edith Nakandi at the signing of the impugned consent judgment.
  • Kamada Bukenya is not granted leave to join as a co-plaintiff.
  • Costs in all the applications to abide in the main cause.

Rules and key headnotes

Civil Procedure — Registrar's Powers — Review of Consent Judgments
A Registrar of the High Court has no jurisdiction to review judgments or orders of the High Court, including those entered by the Registrar. The power to review under Order 46 of the Civil Procedure Rules is not delegated to the Registrar.
Civil Procedure — Registrar's Powers — Entry of Consent Judgment
A Registrar may enter a consent judgment if it arises as preliminary to the trial or if it specifically arises from directions issued by the trial Judge. A Registrar lacks power to enter a consent judgment in a matter that is part-heard before a Judge without such directions from the Judge.
Civil Procedure — Review — Locus Standi of Non-Party
A person who was not a party to proceedings but participated only as a witness lacks locus standi to apply for review of a consent judgment as an aggrieved party, particularly where that person has filed a separate suit on the same cause of action and seeks reliefs that are pending in that separate suit.
Civil Procedure — Consent Judgments — Grounds for Setting Aside
Consent judgments can be set aside for fraud, collusion, or any other reason which would enable the court to set aside an agreement, including where consent was given without knowledge of sufficient material facts, in misapprehension or ignorance of material facts, or where the consent was obtained irregularly.
Civil Procedure — Consent Judgments — Validity of Consent in Absence of Counsel
Where a party to a consent judgment deposes that she signed the consent in the absence of her counsel, was misled by the opposing party and his lawyer, and did not understand the terms of the consent, and where the consent was entered in a matter part-heard before a Judge who had issued an injunction, the consent judgment was irregularly obtained and may be set aside.

Legislation cited (6)

Cases cited (5)

  • Attorney General & ULC v James Mark Kamoga & James Kamada (Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 8 of 2004)
  • Makula International v His Eminence Cardinal Nsubuga (1982) HCB 11
  • Degeya Trading Store (U) Ltd v URA (Court of Appeal Civil Appeal No. 44 of 1996)
  • Mohamed Allibai versus W E Bukenya Mukasa and Departed Asians Property Custodian Board
  • Brooke Bond and Hebig T Ltd v Malya (1975) EA 265

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Kamada v Nakandi & Anor (Misc. Application No. 0775 of 2017) [2017] UGHCLD 364 (9 November 2017)
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.