Wakilii

Nabagesera and 4 Others v Uganda Land Commission (Miscellaneous Application 14 of 2020)

High Court · [2024] UGHCLD 219 · 2024 Application Dismissed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Application to set aside consent judgment entered in earlier civil suit concerning compulsorily acquired land
Decision
Application dismissed and consent judgment of 6 July 2018 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

Court dismissed application to set aside consent judgment. Held that applicants knowingly and voluntarily signed the consent judgment acknowledging that their land at Nambole was compulsorily acquired by Government in 1989 and compensation was paid to the executor of their late relative's estate in 1991. Applicants bound by their signatures on consent judgment and cannot disown it by claiming they did not understand its terms. Plea of non est factum rejected where evidence proved applicants understood the implication of their signatures.

Outcome

Application dismissed and consent judgment of 6 July 2018 stands

Facts

In 1989, Government of Uganda compulsorily acquired 16 acres of land at Kyadondo Block 234 Plot 263 (Nambole) for construction of Mandela National Stadium pursuant to Statutory Instrument No.226-31. The land was registered in names of James Nsubuga and Norah Nabagesera as executor and executrix of Estate of late Keresipo Kitaka. Uganda Land Commission was registered as owner in 1993. In 1991, compensation of UGX 10,943,050 was paid to James Nsubuga as executor. In 2016, 27 years after acquisition, applicants (including Nabagesera) filed suit against Uganda Land Commission. An ex parte judgment was entered in their favour in 2017. In 2018, parties signed a consent judgment acknowledging the lawful acquisition and that compensation had been received. In 2020, applicants applied to set aside the consent judgment, claiming they were illiterate and tricked into signing without understanding its implications. Some applicants had earlier signed a letter in 2017 relinquishing all claims and confirming compensation was made.

Issues

  1. Whether the applicants have satisfied the conditions for setting aside the consent judgment entered by the court on 6 July 2018 between the applicants and Uganda Land Commission concerning land at Mandela National Stadium Nambole.

Orders

  • Application to set aside the consent judgment entered on 6 July 2018 dismissed.
  • Applicants to pay the costs of the application.

Rules and key headnotes

Civil Procedure — Setting aside consent judgments — Grounds — Non est factum
A party of full age and understanding is normally bound by their signature on a document whether they read or understand it or not. If a party seeks to disown a document by pleading non est factum, claiming they were misled into executing a document different from that which they intended to execute, the burden of proving non est factum falls on the party seeking to disown the document.
Civil Procedure — Consent judgments — Setting aside — Applicable grounds
A consent judgment may be set aside if it is proved that it was obtained through illegality, fraud, mistake, misapprehension, contravention of court policy, or in general any reason that would enable a court to set aside a contract.
Civil Procedure — Review of judgments — Statutory basis
Any person considering himself or herself aggrieved by a judgment or ruling of the court may apply for a review of the judgment or ruling to the court which passed the decision, pursuant to Section 82 of the Civil Procedure Act and Order 46 rule 1 of the Civil Procedure Rules.

Legislation cited (3)

Cases cited (3)

  • FX Mubukuke v UEB (Miscellaneous Application No. 98 of 2005)
  • Attorney General and Uganda Land Commission v James Mark Kamoga and James Kamala (Civil Appeal No. 8 of 2004)
  • Saunders v Anglia Building Society [1970] 3 All ER 961

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Nabagesera_and_4_Others_v_Uganda_Land_Commission_(Miscellaneous_Application_14_of_2020)_[2024]_UGHCLD_219_(12_September_2024)
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.