Wakilii

Mother Kevin Women Open University Ltd & 2 Ors v Damanico Properties Ltd (Miscellaneous Application No. 140 of 2018)

High Court · [2018] UGCOMMC 29 · 2018 Application Dismissed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Application to review and set aside consent judgment arising from mediation in an underlying landlord-tenant dispute
Decision
Application to review and set aside consent judgment refused; consent judgment stands

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 a consent judgment arising from mediation cannot be set aside unless circumstances exist that would afford grounds for varying or rescinding a contract between parties, such as fraud, mistake, misapprehension, or ignorance of material facts. The applicants, represented by counsel throughout mediation over four sessions, freely consented to the settlement with full knowledge of all material facts, including the allegedly defective third floor. No fraud, misrepresentation, or change of circumstances was proved. Application dismissed.

Outcome

Application to review and set aside consent judgment refused; consent judgment stands

Facts

The respondent landlord sued the applicants for rent arrears, mesne profits, and vacant possession of premises at Plot 40, Kampala Road. The parties underwent mediation over four sessions and on 9 May 2017 reached a consent settlement under which the applicants agreed to pay UGX 87,521,900 as rent and utility arrears in two instalments by 15 June and 15 July 2017, to pay ongoing rent from 1 July 2017, and to provide security. The applicants' 50% share in land at Bulemezi Block 96, Plot 23 was retained as security with provision for execution in the event of default. The applicants defaulted. Nine months later, on 26 February 2018, they filed this application to set aside the consent judgment, alleging that rent arrears had been erroneously calculated because one of three floors was uninhabitable due to leakages. The third applicant was a defendant, witness to the tenancy agreement, and signatory to the consent judgment.

Issues

  1. Whether a consent judgment arising from mediation should be reviewed and set aside on the ground that rent arrears were erroneously calculated.
  2. Whether the court has jurisdiction to interfere with a consent judgment entered after mediation under the Judicature (Mediation) Rules 2013.

Orders

  • Application dismissed with costs.

Rules and key headnotes

Civil Procedure — Consent Judgments — Review and Setting Aside — Grounds
A court cannot interfere with a consent judgment except in circumstances that would afford a good ground for varying or rescinding a contract between parties, including fraud, mistake, misapprehension, collusion, agreement contrary to public policy, absence of sufficient material facts, ignorance of material facts, or any general reason which may enable the court to set aside an agreement.
Civil Procedure — Mediation — Consent Orders — Variation — Counsel Representation
An order made by consent following mediation should rarely be reviewed or varied where both parties were represented by counsel at the hearing. There must be a change of circumstances which could not have been envisaged at the time of making the original order.
Civil Procedure — Mediation — Appeals — Finality
Under the Judicature (Mediation) Rules 2013, Rule 17, no appeals can be made from orders arising under the mediation rules. Consent judgments arising from mediation are final subject only to grounds that would permit rescission of a contract.

Legislation cited (1)

  • Judicature (Mediation) Rules 2013 r.17

Cases cited (3)

  • Hirani v Kassam (1952) 19 EACA 131
  • Flora Wakise v Wamboko [1988] KLR 429
  • Khantibhai Patel v Gulamhussein Bros (HCCA No. 12 of 1968)

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Mother Kevin Women Open University Ltd & 2 Ors v Damanico Properties Ltd (Miscellaneous Application No. 140 of 2018) [2018] UGCommC 29 (17 August 2018)
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.