Nansubuga & 2 Ors v Lukyamuzi (Miscellaneous Application No. 81 of 2015)

Observed later treatment

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

An application to set aside a default decree and consent settlement on grounds of alleged non-service was dismissed where the applicants had voluntarily entered into a consent agreement in court, witnessed by their counsel, and had made partial payments under that agreement. The court held that entering into the consent settlement and making instalment payments constituted a waiver of any claim of non-service, and no grounds of fraud, collusion, or mistake were established to warrant setting aside the consent judgment.

Outcome

Application dismissed with costs to the respondent

Facts

The respondent instituted Civil Suit No. 542 of 2014 against the applicants seeking a refund of UGX 71,146,500 arising from a failed land transaction. A default judgment was entered on 8 September 2014. After execution proceedings commenced, the applicants and respondent entered into a consent settlement on 10 October 2014, witnessed by the applicants' lawyer, agreeing to pay the decretal amount in instalments with three named guarantors. The applicants made four instalment payments totalling UGX 41,131,853 but later defaulted on a balance of UGX 43,139,647 due by 31 January 2015. The applicants then filed this application seeking to set aside both the default decree and the consent settlement on grounds that they were never effectively served with summons in the original suit.

Issues

1. Whether the applicants are entitled to an order setting aside the decree passed against them on 8 September 2014 and setting aside execution of the said decree.
2. Whether the applicants are entitled to an order setting aside the consent judgment dated 10 October 2014.

Orders

• Application dismissed.
• Costs awarded to the respondent.

Rules and key headnotes

Legislation cited (3)

• Civil Procedure Rules Order 36 rule 11
• Civil Procedure Rules Order 52 rule 3
• Civil Procedure Rules Order 19 rule 3(1)

Cases cited (3)

• Maluku Interglobal Trade Agency Ltd v Bank of Uganda [1985] HCB 65
• Attorney General v James Mark Kamoga and Another (Civil Appeal No. 8 of 2004)
• Hirani v Kassam (1952) 19 EACA 131

Cases citing this judgment (1)

How later Ugandan judgments in the Wakilii corpus have cited this case. Treatment labels come from Sequitur — Uganda’s citator — each backed by a verbatim span from the citing judgment, and are not an assertion that this case is, or is not, good law.

• In the matter of application by way of Judicial Review between Mbabazi RoselynTusiime v Attorney General & Anor (Miscellaneous Cause No. 0061 of 2019)

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