Nakato and Another v Mukasa and Another (HCT Misc App 39 of 2023)

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.

Holding

The High Court dismissed an application to review a consent judgment entered in a land dispute. The applicants, claiming to be beneficiaries of an estate with an interest in the kibanja subject to the consent, were not parties to the original suit. The court held that the consent judgment should be upheld as the applicants failed to establish fraud, mistake, or misrepresentation, and their late claim was an afterthought. The respondent who entered the consent sued in his own right as owner and had locus standi even without letters of administration.

Outcome

Application for review of consent judgment dismissed; consent judgment stands.

Facts

On 25 May 2022, a consent judgment was entered in Civil Suit No. 264 of 2018 between ten plaintiffs and the first defendant Segulani David concerning land (kibanja) interests. Under the consent, each plaintiff had surveyed their respective kibanja and would share it in equal portions with the defendant who would in turn provide a certificate of title. Mukasa Mathew was the 46th plaintiff in that suit. The applicants Nakato Suzan Nzalinda (widow of the late Nzalinda Christom, son of Kamuhanda Kaberuka) and Kifunfu Andrea (claiming to be son of Kamuhanda Kaberuka) filed this application on 24 March 2023 to review and set aside the consent judgment. They alleged that Mukasa Mathew did not have authority to make decisions regarding the estate of the late Kamuhanda Kaberuka John and that they had beneficial interests in the kibanja as beneficiaries under a Will dated 26 February 2013. They claimed Mukasa shared the kibanja without their consent and without letters of administration, depriving them of their equitable interests. The applicants were not parties to the original suit.

Issues

1. Whether the application has merits for review or setting aside of a consent judgment of Civil Suit No. 264 of 2018.

Orders

• Application dismissed.
• Costs awarded to the second respondent Segulani David.

Rules and key headnotes

Legislation cited (3)

• Civil Procedure Act Cap 71 s.82(b)
• Civil Procedure Rules Order 46 rule 1(b)
• Civil Procedure Rules Order 46 rule 8

Cases cited (2)

• Attorney General and Another v James Mark Kamoga and Another (Civil Appeal No. 8 of 2004)
• Isreal Kabwa v Martin Banoba Musiga (Civil Appeal No. 52 of 1995)

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