Wakilii

Mariam Kuteesa v Nantumbwe Kizito and Others (Civil Reference No. 85 Of 2020)

Court of Appeal · [2020] UGCA 2178 · 2020 Reference Struck Out AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Reference to a full bench of the Court of Appeal from an endorsement of a consent settlement by a single Justice of Appeal in Civil Appeal No. 163 of 2015
Decision
Reference struck out as incompetent for use of wrong procedure and want of jurisdiction; the appellant may seek to set aside the agreement in a court with original jurisdiction

Observed later treatment

Cited — treatment unverified cited in 2 (treatment unverified) Sequitur — Uganda’s citator · Derived from citing cases in the Wakilii corpus — not an assertion that this case is good law.

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.

No adverse treatment recorded Cited 2 times with no adverse treatment recorded; not yet tested on the merits. Derived from citing cases in the Wakilii corpus — a deterministic signal, not legal advice.

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 of Appeal struck out the reference as incompetent. It held that the single Justice did not make any decision of a single judge under section 12 of the Judicature Act, but merely witnessed an agreement of the parties. A reference under rule 55 lies only from a decision, order or direction of a single Justice; where none exists, no reference can lie. The withdrawal of an appeal under rule 94(3) requires only that the appellant lodge the consent documents so the appeal is struck off the list of pending appeals; no judicial decision is made. The agreement, concerning execution of the High Court decree, could only be set aside in a court of original jurisdiction.

Outcome

Reference struck out as incompetent for use of wrong procedure and want of jurisdiction; the appellant may seek to set aside the agreement in a court with original jurisdiction

Facts

The respondents purchased and registered land in 1973, later transferring it to their children. In Civil Suit No. 95 of 2009 the High Court decreed the land formed part of the estate of the late Musa Muganzi, with the appellant as administrator, and a Special Certificate of Title was issued to her. The respondents appealed (Civil Appeal No. 163 of 2015). During mediation, the parties signed a document titled "Consent Judgment" on 10 October 2019, witnessed by Kiryabwire, JA sitting as a single Justice. It provided that the appeal be withdrawn, that the appellant bind herself not to enforce the High Court decree, and that the dispute be settled per an annexed agreement offering her UGX 750,000,000. The appellant later sought to set aside the consent judgment, alleging fraud, misrepresentation and that the single Justice lacked jurisdiction to endorse a consent setting aside earlier appellate decisions. The respondents objected that the document was merely an agreement, not a decision, and that the reference disclosed no enabling law.

Issues

  1. Whether a single Justice of the Court of Appeal had jurisdiction to endorse the so-called consent judgment in Civil Appeal No. 163 of 2015.
  2. Whether a reference under rule 55 of the Court of Appeal Rules lies against the endorsement of an agreement of the parties by a single Justice.
  3. Whether the reference was competently brought before the Court.

Orders

  • The reference is struck out for use of wrong procedure and for being filed in a court without jurisdiction.
  • Costs awarded against the appellant.

Rules and key headnotes

Court of Appeal — References — Jurisdiction under rule 55 — Requirement of a decision of a single Justice
A reference to a full bench of the Court of Appeal under rule 55 of the Court of Appeal Rules lies only from an order, direction or decision of a single Justice exercising a power vested in the Court in an interlocutory cause or matter; where the single Justice has made no such decision, no reference can lie.
Court of Appeal — Mediation — Consent judgment — Endorsement of an agreement is not a judicial decision
Where a single Justice merely witnesses an agreement reached by the parties through mediation, the Justice makes no order or decision of the Court of Appeal; the document, however titled a "Consent Judgment", remains an agreement of the parties and not a judgment or order of the Court.
Court of Appeal — Withdrawal of appeal — Rule 94(3) — No judicial decision required
Withdrawal of an appeal by consent under rule 94(3) of the Court of Appeal Rules requires only that the appellant lodge the documents signifying the parties' consent, whereupon the appeal is struck out of the list of pending appeals; no decision of a single Justice or of the Court is made in such withdrawal.
Consent judgments — Nature as a contract — Grounds and forum for setting aside
A consent judgment is a contract between the parties and may be set aside only on grounds that would vitiate an agreement, such as fraud, collusion, illegality or misrepresentation; where the agreement is not embodied in any order of court, it must be challenged in a court of original jurisdiction and not by reference to the appellate court.
Execution of decree — Post-judgment agreements — Court executing the decree
It is not illegal per se for parties to agree on how a High Court decree may be enforced; such a post-judgment agreement, which does not set aside or vary the decree, is a matter arising between the parties relating to execution and falls to be determined by the court executing the decree.

Legislation cited (19)

Cases cited (20)

  • Mubezi James and 2 Others v Kasule Samuel (Civil Appeal No. 10 of 2017)
  • Attorney General and Another v James Mark Kamoga and Another (Civil Appeal No. 8 of 2004)
  • Hirani vs Kassam 19 (EACA) 131
  • Zabwe Fredrick v Orient Bank and Others (Civil Appeal No. 4 of 2006)
  • Uganda Broadcasting Corporation v Sinba (K) Ltd and Others (Civil Application No. 12 of 2014)
  • Bulasio Konde v Bulandina Nankya (Civil Appeal No. 7 of 1980)
  • Edith Nantumbwe and 3 Others v Miriam Kuteesa (Civil Appeal No. 294 of 2013)
  • Ayella Odoch Jimmy Joel v Kitgum District Local Government and Another (Civil Appeal No. 26 of 2014)
  • Kamurasi Charles v Accord Properties Limited and Another (Civil Appeal No. 3 of 1996)
  • Saroj Gandesha v Transroad Ltd (Civil Appeal No. 13 of 2009)
  • The Environment Action Network Limited v Joseph Eryau (Civil Application No. 98 of 2005)
  • Brooke Bond (T) Ltd v Marlya [1975] E.A. 266
  • Purcell v F C Trigell Ltd (trading as Southern Window and General Cleaning Co) and another [1970] 3 All ER 671
  • Huddersfield Banking Co. Ltd v Henry Lister & Son Ltd (1895) 2 Ch D 273
  • Farida Nantale v Attorney General and Others (Civil Application No. 286 of 2014)
  • Uganda Broadcasting Corporation v Sinba (K) Ltd and Others (Civil Application No. 12 of 2014)
  • Slaney v Keane [1970] Ch.245
  • Lees v Motor Insurer's Bureau [1953] WLR 520
  • Supreme Court in Miscellaneous Application No. 20 of 2014
  • SCCA No. 11 of 2014

Cases citing this judgment (2)

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.

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Mariam Kuteesa v Nantumbwe Kizito and Others (Civil Reference No. 85 Of 2020) [2020] UGCA 2178 (2 October 2020)
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.