Nantale v Attorney General & 2 Ors (Civil Application No. 286 of 2014)

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

The Court of Appeal held that the Registrar of the Court of Appeal had no jurisdiction to endorse a Consent Order purporting to dispose of a pending appeal. Appellate jurisdiction is a creature of statute; under section 11 of the Judicature Act the Court exercises the powers of the High Court only for the purpose of hearing and determining an appeal. A consent agreement that neither affirmed, reversed, varied nor set aside the lower court's decision was a mere agreement between parties and could not be issued as a decree of the Court. Jurisdiction cannot be conferred by consent. Because an illegality was brought to the Court's attention, objections on locus standi and the supporting affidavit could not bar consideration. The Consent Order was set aside with costs.

Outcome

Consent Order dated 14 June 2011 set aside for want of jurisdiction, with costs

Facts

The third respondent, House of Dawda (U) Limited, had filed High Court Miscellaneous Cause No. 88 of 2009 seeking reliefs against the first and second respondents concerning land at Nakawa. The cause was dismissed as devoid of merit. The third respondent appealed to the Court of Appeal in Civil Appeal No. 23 of 2011, but the appeal was never heard; instead it was disposed of by a Consent Order entered and executed before the Registrar of the Court of Appeal on 14 June 2011. The Consent Order recognised the appellant's proprietary interest in the Nakawa land, provided for surrender to the Uganda Land Commission, and arranged for a lease of alternative land at Nsambya comprised in FRV 440 folios 17 and 18. The applicant, who claimed the Nsambya land in High Court Civil Suit No. 97 of 2011, applied to set aside the Consent Order, contending the Registrar lacked jurisdiction and that the Order dealt with land not in issue in the appeal.

Issues

1. Whether the Registrar of the Court of Appeal had jurisdiction to endorse a Consent Order disposing of a pending appeal.
2. Whether an illegality raised on a point of law can be considered notwithstanding objections as to the applicant's locus standi and the competence of the supporting affidavit.
3. Whether the Court of Appeal, exercising only appellate jurisdiction, could entertain a consent agreement that did not affect the decision of the lower court.

Orders

• The Consent Judgment issued by the Registrar on 14 June 2011 is set aside.
• Costs of the application awarded to the applicant.

Rules and key headnotes

Legislation cited (6)

• Constitution of the Republic of Uganda art.134(2)
• Constitution of the Republic of Uganda art.135(1)
• Judicature Act Cap 13 s.10
• Judicature Act Cap 13 s.11
• Judicature (Court of Appeal) Rules r.44
• Judicature (Court of Appeal) Rules r.56(2)

Cases cited (6)

• Uganda Broadcasting Corporation v Sinba (K) Ltd and 3 Others (Civil Application No. 12 of 2014)
• Edith Nantumbwe Kizito and 3 Others v Miriam Kuteesa (Civil Application No. 294 of 2013)
• Slanley v Keane [1970] Ch 245
• Makula International v Cardinal Nsubuga [1982] HCB 11
• Attorney-General v Shah (No 4) [1971] 1 EA 50
• Ibingira v. Uganda, [1966] E.A. 445

Cases citing this judgment (3)

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.

• Total Seeta Service Station v Stanbic Bank Limited Uganda and Julius Baale (Civil Appeal 165 of 2019)
• Mugubi and Another v Banja and Another (Civil Appeal No. 84 of 2021)
• Fox Odoi v Attorney General (Constitutional Petition No. 54 of 2013)

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