Kizza Daniel and Others v Uganda Land Commission and Others (Miscellaneous Application 1237 of 2013)

Observed later treatment

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.

Holding

Held that a consent judgment entered between respondents should be set aside where there was misapprehension of facts regarding the identity of the parties, where a third-party applicant's interests were excluded, where the judgment was entered contrary to a prior court direction requiring clarification of party identities, and where evidence in opposition was commissioned by an uncertified advocate. Application granted; consent judgment set aside; matter to be heard on merit.

Outcome

Consent judgment set aside; matter remitted for hearing on merit

Facts

The applicants, members of Abalema United Efforts Association (a CBO), applied to set aside a consent judgment entered in Civil Suit No. 284 of 2009 concerning Plot 175 Bombo Road. The consent judgment was entered between the Uganda Land Commission (1st respondent), Disabled (Abalema) United Effort Ltd (2nd respondent), and Salvation Army (3rd respondent). The applicants alleged they were excluded from the consent judgment despite having interests in the suit land. They claimed there was confusion between two entities: Abalema United Efforts Association (the applicants, a CBO) and Disabled (Abalema) United Effort Ltd (2nd respondent, a limited liability company). The 1st respondent dealt with the 2nd respondent believing it was dealing with the applicants. A prior ruling by Hon. Justice Murangira dated 6 June 2013 had directed that identities of the two groups be clarified before any consent judgment was validated. The applicants alleged the consent judgment was backdated and entered contrary to that direction, and that the 2nd respondent forged signatures to claim compensation money.

Issues

1. Whether the consent judgment entered into between the respondents should be reviewed and set aside.
2. Whether there was an error apparent on the face of the record in the consent judgment.
3. Whether there was misapprehension or ignorance of material facts by the parties in entering into the consent judgment.
4. Whether the consent judgment was entered into contrary to the court's prior directions.

Orders

• Application granted.
• The impugned consent judgment is set aside.
• The case will be heard on merit.
• Costs will abide the outcome of the main suit.

Rules and key headnotes

Legislation cited (7)

• Civil Procedure Act Cap. 71 s.98
• Civil Procedure Act Cap. 71 s.99
• Civil Procedure Rules Order 46 r.1
• Civil Procedure Rules Order 46 r.2
• Civil Procedure Rules Order 46 r.4
• Civil Procedure Rules Order 46 r.8
• Civil Procedure Rules Order 52 r.1

Cases cited (6)

• Ken Group of Companies Ltd v Standard Chartered Bank and 2 Others (High Court Miscellaneous Application No. 116 of 2012)
• Hirani v Kassam [1952] EA 131
• Broke Bond Liebig (T) Ltd v Mallya [1975] EA 266
• Mohammad Allibhai v WE Nukenya Musa and Another (Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 56 of 1996)
• Otim George William v EC (Election Petition No. 17 of 2011)
• Bankunda Darlington v Dr Stanley Kinyata (Court of Appeal No. 27 of 1996)

Cases citing this judgment (1)

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.

• Turyagumanawe & 6 Ors v Attorney General & Anor (MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION No. 559 OF 2016)

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