Wakilii

Mugubi and Another v Banja and Another (Civil Appeal No. 84 of 2021)

High Court · [2022] UGHCCD 67 · 2022 Application Granted AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Application to set aside a purported consent judgment entered during the pendency of Civil Appeal No. 176 of 2013, arising from a High Court civil suit concerning estate property
Decision
Application granted; consent judgment set aside; estate property reverted to the estate of the deceased for distribution to beneficiaries

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 of Appeal held that a consent judgment executed by parties during the pendency of an appeal and endorsed by the Registrar is a nullity, as parties cannot by agreement reverse or vary a High Court judgment without hearing the appeal. The applicants, as beneficiaries of the deceased's estate, are persons aggrieved with locus standi to challenge the consent judgment, notwithstanding that they were not parties to the original suit. All transactions implementing the void consent judgment, including the transfer of estate property to the second respondent, were set aside and the property reverted to the estate.

Outcome

Application granted; consent judgment set aside; estate property reverted to the estate of the deceased for distribution to beneficiaries

Facts

The second respondent sued the administrators of the estate of the late Paul M Banja in High Court Civil Suit No. 125 of 2010, claiming ownership of land comprising Busiro Block 263 Plot 103 at Senge. The High Court dismissed the suit and declared the administrators the lawful owners. While the second respondent's appeal was pending before the Court of Appeal, the parties executed a purported consent judgment on 8 June 2015, endorsed by the Registrar on 16 June 2015, which subdivided the estate property: 4 acres retained for the estate and 6 acres transferred to the second respondent. The Court of Appeal subsequently delivered judgment on 18 March 2021 dismissing the second respondent's claim to ownership and declaring him only a lawful occupant of 3 acres. The applicants, who are sons and beneficiaries of the deceased, filed this application to set aside the consent judgment and recover the 6 acres transferred to the second respondent.

Issues

  1. Whether the application raises sufficient grounds for setting aside a consent judgment entered by the respondents during the pendency of an appeal.
  2. Whether beneficiaries of an estate who were not parties to the original suit have locus standi to challenge a consent judgment that affects estate property.
  3. Whether the Court of Appeal has become functus officio after delivering judgment in the underlying appeal.
  4. What remedies are available to the parties.

Orders

  • The consent judgment signed by the parties on 8 June 2015 and issued under the hand of the Registrar of the Court of Appeal on 16 June 2015 is hereby set aside.
  • All transactions relating to execution of the consent judgment by transfer of Busiro Block 263 plots 2505, 2506 and 2507 at Senge to the second respondent are null and void.
  • An order issues cancelling the said registrations and reverting the suit property back to the estate of Paul M Banja as represented by the administrators of the estate.
  • The application succeeds with costs to the applicants.

Rules and key headnotes

Appeals — Settlement by Consent — Validity of Consent Judgments on Appeal
An appeal cannot be allowed by consent of the parties, as this would amount to reversing the judgment of the lower court without hearing the appeal; a consent judgment entered during the pendency of an appeal purporting to vary or reverse the High Court judgment is a nullity.
Consent Settlements — Jurisdiction of Registrar of Court of Appeal
The Registrar of the Court of Appeal has no power to enter judgment in any matter at the Court of Appeal; a consent endorsed by the Registrar purporting to settle an appeal and vary a High Court decree is a nullity for want of jurisdiction, which cannot be conferred by agreement of the parties.
Locus Standi — Beneficiaries of Estate — Person Aggrieved
Beneficiaries of an estate are persons aggrieved with locus standi to challenge a consent judgment that wrongfully disposes of estate property to which they are entitled, even though they were not parties to the original suit or appeal, as they have suffered a legal grievance by being wrongfully deprived of their beneficial interest.
Review — Power to Set Aside Void Judgments — Section 82 Civil Procedure Act
The Court of Appeal has power under section 82 of the Civil Procedure Act and rule 2(2) of the Judicature (Court of Appeal Rules) Directions to set aside judgments which have been proved to be null and void, even after they have been passed, in order to meet the ends of justice.
Consent Settlements — Proper Forum — Adjustment of High Court Decrees
Parties wishing to settle their appeal by consent may withdraw the appeal and return to the High Court to apply to the judge who passed the decree to allow them to compromise or adjust the decree by consent; parties cannot on appeal reverse or interfere with the High Court judgment by consent.
Estate Property — Unlawful Disposition by Administrator — Remedy
Where an administrator of an estate unlawfully disposes of estate property pursuant to a void consent judgment, all transactions implementing that judgment are null and void; the court will issue orders cancelling such registrations and reverting the property to the estate for lawful distribution to beneficiaries.

Legislation cited (9)

Cases cited (14)

  • Dr Livingstone Sewanyana v Martin Aliker (Supreme Court Civil Application No. 40 of 1991)
  • Uganda Broadcasting Corporation v SINBA (K) Limited and 3 Others (Court of Appeal Civil Application No. 12 of 2014)
  • Makula International Ltd v Cardinal Nsubuga and Another (Court of Appeal Civil Appeal No. 4 of 1981)
  • Adneste Monanyana v The State (Criminal Appeal No. 8 of 2001)
  • Caroline Mbojaine and Others v James Mbojaine (Civil Appeal No. 3 of 2004)
  • Nabudde v Kikumi (HCT-04-CV-CA-0072-2009)
  • Attorney General of Gambia v N'jie [1961] AC 617 (PC)
  • ex parte. Official Receiver in re Reed, Bowen & Company
  • Farida Nantale v Attorney General, Registrar of Titles and House of Dawda (U) Ltd (Civil Application No. 286 of 2014)
  • Edith Nantumbwe and 3 Others v Miriam Kuteesa (Court of Appeal Civil Appeal No. 294 of 2013)
  • Slaney v Keane [1970] Ch 245
  • Bulasio Konde v Bulandina Nankya (Court of Appeal Civil Appeal No. 7 of 1980)
  • Lees v Motor Insurer's Bureau [1953] WLR 620
  • American Procurement Company Ltd v Attorney General (Civil Appeal No. 35 of 2009)

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Mugubi and Another v Banja and Another (Civil Appeal No. 84 of 2021) [2022] UGHCCD 67 (29 March 2022)
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.