Nassolo and Others v Ruth Matovu and Another (Miscellaneous Application No. 35 of 2022)

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

Held that a consent judgment may be set aside where vitiated by fraud, mistake, or contravention of court policy. Where joint administrators of an estate must act together, one administrator cannot alone dispose of estate property by consent decree. The impugned consent judgment was set aside on two grounds: first, the first respondent as joint administrator acted without her co-administrators' approval in disposing of estate property; second, the parties colluded by filing a consent judgment before the defence was filed, commencing proceedings despite a pending suit in the Family Division concerning the same estate, and failing to describe the disputed land in the plaint.

Outcome

Consent judgment and warrant to give vacant possession set aside

Facts

The second respondent sued the first respondent in HCCS No. 111 of 2018 for eviction from land at Gabunga Road, Wankulukuku. The first respondent filed a defence admitting the claim and stating she had sold the land but could not hand over possession due to family challenges. A consent judgment was entered and a warrant to give vacant possession issued. The five applicants, children of the late Godfrey Matovu, claimed the first respondent was their stepmother and a joint administrator of their late father's estate. They alleged she disposed of estate property without the consent of her co-administrators and to their disadvantage. A suit concerning estate administration (HCCS No. 109 of 2015) was already pending in the Family Division when HCCS No. 111 of 2018 was commenced. The applicants sought to set aside the consent judgment on grounds of fraud and collusion.

Issues

1. Whether the consent judgment in High Court Civil Suit No. 111 of 2018 should be set aside.

Orders

• The consent judgment dated 12 March 2018 and endorsed by the court on 4 April 2018 between Hajjati Nakintu Hadijah and Ruth Matovu Gonzaga is set aside.
• The warrant to give vacant possession issued by the court on 20 October 2021 is set aside.
• Costs of this application shall be paid by the respondents jointly and/or severally.

Rules and key headnotes

Legislation cited (5)

• Judicature Act Cap 13 s.33
• Civil Procedure Act Cap 71 s.82
• Civil Procedure Act Cap 71 s.98
• Civil Procedure Rules SI 71-1 Order 46 rule 1
• Civil Procedure Rules SI 71-1 Order 46 rule 8

Cases cited (2)

• Attorney General and Uganda Land Commission v James Mark Kamoga and James Kamala (Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 8 of 2004)
• Silver Byaruhanga v Fr Emmanuel Ruvugwaho and Another (Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 9 of 2014)

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