Wakilii

Katabarwa Herbert v Fin Credit (U) Ltd and Another (Miscellaneous Application No. 354 of 2025)

High Court · [2026] UGHCCD 55 · 2026 Application Dismissed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Application for review of consent judgment under Section 82 of the Civil Procedure Act and Order 46 of the Civil Procedure Rules
Decision
Application for review dismissed; applicant advised to pursue civil suit for allegations of fraud and forgery

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 while the applicant had locus standi as an aggrieved third party to bring the review application, the consent judgment had already been executed and the vehicle released to the second respondent after loan clearance. The application was dismissed as it would lead to moot findings, and the applicant was advised to seek redress through other available courses of action such as a civil suit.

Outcome

Application for review dismissed; applicant advised to pursue civil suit for allegations of fraud and forgery

Facts

On 18 October 2023, the applicant purchased a motor vehicle (Reg. No. UBJ 880J) from the second respondent and took possession. On 19 December 2023, the second respondent obtained a loan of UGX 18,000,000 from the first respondent, securing it with the same vehicle by lodging a caveat on the logbook. When the second respondent defaulted, the first respondent repossessed the vehicle from the applicant's possession on 2 July 2024 pursuant to a court order. The applicant applied to be joined as a party but was refused. While the applicant's appeal was pending, the respondents entered into a consent judgment on 7 May 2025 providing for release of the vehicle upon payment. The second respondent subsequently cleared the loan and the vehicle was released to him. The applicant then filed this application to review and set aside the consent judgment, alleging collusion and claiming the logbook used to secure the loan was forged.

Issues

  1. Whether the applicant, as a third party, has locus standi to bring an application for review of a consent judgment.
  2. Whether the applicant has a cause of action against the first respondent.
  3. Whether there are grounds pleaded and proved by the applicant for review of the consent judgment.
  4. Whether a consent judgment that has already been executed can be reviewed and set aside.

Orders

  • Application dismissed.
  • Each party to bear their own costs.
  • Applicant advised to seek redress through other available courses of action.

Rules and key headnotes

Civil Procedure — Review of Judgment — Locus Standi of Third Party — Aggrieved Person
A third party has locus standi to bring an application for review of a consent judgment under Section 82 of the Civil Procedure Act where they can demonstrate they are an aggrieved person who has suffered a legal grievance or been deprived of their property as a result of that consent judgment.
Civil Procedure — Review of Judgment — Executed Consent Orders — Mootness
Where a consent order has already been fully executed before an application for review is brought, the court has no remedy to offer through the course of action of review as any findings would be moot. An applicant who sleeps on their rights until after execution cannot obtain relief through review.
Civil Procedure — Fraud and Forgery — Proper Procedure for Determination
Allegations of fraud and forgery are serious matters that cannot be inquired into briefly in an interlocutory application. They require investigations and can only be properly answered through a civil suit initiated with a plaint, as they need to be strictly pleaded and proved.

Legislation cited (4)

Cases cited (8)

  • Muhammed Bukenya Allibai v W.E Bukenya & Another (Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 56 of 1996)
  • Kabagambe Grace v Mbabazi Resty & Another (Miscellaneous Application No. 2 of 2022)
  • Tororo Cement v Frokina International Ltd (Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 2 of 2001)
  • Muibe Bricks Manufacturing Co. Ltd v West End Distributors Ltd [1969] 1 EA 696 (CA)
  • Mohamed Alibhai v W.E Bukenya Mukasa & Another [1996] UGSC 13
  • Re Nakumbo Chemists (U) Ltd & In The Matter of the Companies Act (1979) HCB 12
  • Yusuf Vs Holroyd (1971) EA 104
  • Hon. Justice Prof. Dr. George W. Kanyeihamba Vs the Commissioner Land Registration & Ridatton Musingizi HCMC 79/2011

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Katabarwa Herbert v Fin Credit (U) Ltd and Another (Miscellaneous Application No. 354 of 2025) [2026] UGHCCD 55 (6 March 2026)
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.