Wakilii

Mwebeiiha Amatos v Attorney General and Others (Miscellaneous Application 1528 of 2025)

High Court · [2026] UGHCLD 172 · 2026 Application Dismissed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Application to enforce default clause in compromise agreement arising from High Court Civil Suit No. 382 of 2015
Decision
Application dismissed on grounds of applicant's waiver by conduct and undue delay in enforcing default clause

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

Court held that an application to enforce a compromise agreement endorsed by court is not time-barred under the 12-year limitation period for execution of decrees. However, where a party accepts late payments under a breached compromise agreement without protest for five years, that party waives the right to enforce the default clause requiring immediate payment of the full sum. Delay defeats equity and the applicant cannot enforce the default clause after such acquiescence.

Outcome

Application dismissed on grounds of applicant's waiver by conduct and undue delay in enforcing default clause

Facts

In 2016, judgment was entered in the applicant's favour in HCCS No. 382 of 2015 for UGX 20,212,000,000 with 25% interest. On 3 November 2016, parties executed a compromise agreement whereby the applicant waived UGX 22,400,000,000 in interest, leaving UGX 53,773,538,788 due, payable by January 2020. The compromise included a default clause: if payment was not made within the agreed time, the full sum plus reinstated interest would become immediately due. By January 2020, the respondent had paid only UGX 16,974,551,384. The applicant continued accepting further payments totalling UGX 31,540,607,404 after the deadline, without protest, until November 2020. In 2025, the applicant filed this application seeking to enforce the default clause and recover the full original sum plus interest.

Issues

  1. Whether the application is barred by limitation.
  2. Whether the Respondent was in breach of the compromise agreement and if so whether the Applicant can enforce the default clause in the compromise agreement.

Orders

  • Application dismissed.
  • Each party to bear their own costs.

Rules and key headnotes

Limitation — Execution of Decrees — Compromise Agreements Endorsed by Court
A compromise agreement endorsed by court becomes a judgment or decree of court. An application to enforce such a compromise is governed by the 12-year limitation period under section 35 of the Civil Procedure Act for execution of decrees, not the 3-year limitation period for actions founded on contract under the Civil Procedure and Limitation (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act.
Stamp Duty — Affidavits in Support of Applications
Affidavits sworn in support of a notice of motion are procedural pleadings and are not chargeable with stamp duty under the Stamp Duty Act. The Stamp Duty Act applies to affidavits that confer a right or liability on a party, not to procedural affidavits filed as pleadings.
Breach of Contract — Waiver by Conduct — Acceptance of Late Performance
Where a party to a compromise agreement accepts late payments under the agreement without protest or objection over an extended period, that party waives the right to enforce a default clause requiring immediate payment of the full sum upon breach. A party cannot acquiesce to a breach and later seek strict enforcement of the default provision.
Equitable Principles — Delay Defeats Equity
Equity aids the vigilant but not the indolent. Where a party delays five years in enforcing a default clause after becoming aware of a breach, and during that period accepts further payments without objection, such unreasonable delay bars the party from later seeking enforcement of the default clause.

Legislation cited (7)

Cases cited (1)

  • Uganda Taxi Operators and Drivers Association (UTODA) v KCCA and Another (High Court Miscellaneous Application No. 137 of 2011)

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Mwebeiiha_Amatos_v_Attorney_General_and_Others_(Miscellaneous_Application_1528_of_2025)_[2026]_UGHCLD_172_(30_April_2026)
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.