Lilian Katuuka v Kasule Tezigatwa and 2 Others (Miscellaneous Application No. 613 of 2025)
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
Held that the agreement dated 1st December 2020, which formed the basis of the consent judgment, was void for uncertainty under section 22 of the Contracts Act due to the lack of specific description of the subject matter land. A void agreement cannot be enforced, and therefore contempt proceedings based on a consent judgment founded on such void agreement cannot succeed. Application dismissed.
Outcome
Application for contempt dismissed on the ground that the underlying agreement was void for uncertainty
Facts
The parties entered into a consent judgment on 9th December 2020 resolving a land dispute. Under the consent, the 2nd and 3rd respondents agreed to buy alternative land for the 1st respondent so he would vacate the applicant's land. The 1st respondent was given six months to harvest crops and was to cease all claims from 1st May 2021. The applicant brought this application alleging the 1st respondent violated the consent by cutting down her crops valued at UGX 13,560,000 and that the 2nd and 3rd respondents failed to provide the alternative land. The 1st respondent denied contempt, stating he never received the alternative land. The consent judgment incorporated a handwritten Luganda agreement dated 1st December 2020 between the three respondents concerning an unspecified kibanja. The applicant was not a party to that agreement.
Issues
- Whether the respondents were in contempt of the consent judgment dated 9th December 2020.
- Whether the agreement dated 1st December 2020 forming the basis of the consent judgment was void for uncertainty under section 22 of the Contracts Act.
Orders
- Application dismissed.
- Each party to bear its own costs.
Rules and key headnotes
Legislation cited (1)
Full judgment
The original judgment as reported. Read the original PDF before relying on any passage.