Wakilii

Nakkajjugo Olivia v Bulamu Coffee Buyers Processors and Export and Strakon (U) Limited (Miscellaneous Application No. 733 of 2025)

High Court · [2025] UGCOMMC 267 · 2025 Application Dismissed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Application to set aside consent judgment entered in summary suit and application for leave to appear and defend
Decision
Application to set aside consent judgment dismissed; consent judgment remains in force

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 High Court dismissed an application to set aside a consent judgment. The applicant claimed she signed the consent judgment without understanding its terms and was unduly influenced by her father. The court held that a party who signs a contractual document is bound by it in the absence of fraud or misrepresentation. The applicant failed to prove mistake or undue influence. The consent judgment was read to all parties before signing, and the applicant raised no objection at that time. The plea of mistake was rejected as the applicant was aware of the nature and subject matter of the consent judgment.

Outcome

Application to set aside consent judgment dismissed; consent judgment remains in force

Facts

The 2nd Respondent filed Civil Suit No. 424 of 2024 against the applicant and 1st respondent seeking to recover UGX 208,289,440. The applicant and 1st respondent filed Miscellaneous Application No. 843 of 2024 seeking leave to appear and defend. The applicant authorized her father, Mr. Lubega Aloysius (director of the 1st respondent), to represent her in the application. On 8 October 2024, the parties presented a consent settlement which was signed by all parties in the presence of their lawyers and the trial judge. The consent judgment was read to the parties before signing. The 1st respondent paid UGX 100,000,000 to the 2nd respondent as partial performance. The applicant later sought to set aside the consent judgment, claiming she did not understand its terms, thought she was absolved of liability, and was unduly influenced by her father to sign it.

Issues

  1. Whether the 2nd Respondent's affidavit in reply was filed out of time and ought to be struck out.
  2. Whether the Consent Judgment in Civil Suit No. 424 of 2024 and Miscellaneous Application No. 843 of 2024 should be set aside.
  3. What remedies are available to the parties.

Orders

  • Application dismissed.
  • Costs awarded to the 2nd Respondent.

Rules and key headnotes

Civil Procedure — Consent Judgments — Setting Aside — Grounds
A consent judgment is binding on all parties and cannot be varied or discharged unless obtained by fraud, collusion, illegality, mistake, misapprehension, misrepresentation, or contravention of court policy.
Contract Law — Signature of Documents — Binding Effect — Non Est Factum
When a document containing contractual obligations is signed, in the absence of fraud or misrepresentation, the party signing it is bound and it is wholly immaterial whether the party has read the document or not.
Contract Law — Mistake — Mistake of Fact — Requirements
For the defence of mistake to succeed, the alleged mistake of fact must be an ignorant mistake. The plea will be rejected where the person signing had some idea about the nature of the document and what it was dealing with, even though unclear or mistaken as to the nature of some obligations created by the instrument.
Contract Law — Undue Influence — Proof Required
To establish undue influence, the claimant must adduce evidence showing that the power was unbalanced at the time of signing the contract and that the influence invaded the free volition of the victim to accept or reject the persuasion or advice. Undue influence usually arises in a relationship of influence involving acts such as threats to end a relationship or continuing to badger the party until they eventually give in.
Civil Procedure — Affidavits in Reply — Time Limits — Discretion of Court
Where a matter is an application in which evidence is by way of affidavits, timelines for filing a defence under Order 8 rule 1(2) of the Civil Procedure Rules ought not to be strictly applied, and the facts of each case must be considered in the interest of justice.

Legislation cited (9)

Cases cited (8)

  • Oriental Insurance Brokers Limited v Transocean (U) Limited (Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 55 of 1995)
  • Dr. Lam Lagoro James v Muni University (High Court Miscellaneous Cause No. 07 of 2016)
  • Ismail Sunderji Hirani v Noorali Esmail Kassam [1952] 19 EACA 131
  • Attorney General and Another v James Mark Kamoga and Another (Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 8 of 2004)
  • Miriam Kuteesa v Edith Nantumbwe Kizito and Others (Court of Appeal Civil Reference No. 85 of 2020)
  • Salim Rashid v Lokiri Luke Mikair and Others (High Court Miscellaneous Cause No. 12 of 2017)
  • L'Estrange v F. Graucob Ltd [1934] 2 KB 394
  • Nilecom Limited v Kodjo Enterprises Limited (High Court Civil Suit No. 18 of 2014)

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Nakkajjugo Olivia v Bulamu Coffee Buyers Processors and Export and Strakon (U) Limited (Miscellaneous Application No. 733 of 2025) [2025] UGCommC 267 (15 August 2025)
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.