Nsubuga v Animo (Misc. Application No. 357 of 2012)

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 court dismissed an application to review a consent judgment and stay execution. The applicant alleged fraudulent misrepresentation, claiming the respondent did not use payments as agreed to liquidate a mortgage and retrieve land titles. The court held that once a consent decree is sealed by the court, it supersedes the original cause of action. A party cannot challenge the consent on grounds relating to subsequent conduct or matters not contained in the consent itself. The applicant's apprehension that the respondent might breach her obligations was speculative and premature, affording no basis to vary or rescind the consent. The court held that a party in breach of a consent order cannot seek court protection. Execution against the applicant's land was permitted to proceed.

Outcome

Application to review consent judgment dismissed; execution against applicant's land to proceed by way of sale to recover decretal amount unless applicant pays monies due

Facts

The parties entered into a consent settlement on 15 December 2011, sealed by the High Court Land Division on 19 December 2011. Under the consent, the applicant (defendant) agreed to pay the respondent (plaintiff) UGX 50,000,000 being a refund of money received from the respondent, plus interest at 13% per annum from 5 December 2008 until payment in full, with full payment due by 7 March 2012. The applicant paid UGX 10,000,000 at signing and later a further UGX 4,000,000. The applicant defaulted on the balance. The respondent applied for execution. The applicant then brought this application seeking to review the consent and stay execution, alleging fraudulent misrepresentation: that the respondent had agreed to use the payments to liquidate her salary loan at Barclays Bank and retrieve the applicant's land title (Block 206 plot 2754 Mpererwe), but did not do so, and that various matters agreed between counsel were omitted from the written consent. The applicant did not file an affidavit in rejoinder to the respondent's affidavit in reply.

Issues

1. Whether the applicant entered the consent judgment under fraudulent misrepresentation by the respondent that she would use the money to liquidate her salary loan and retrieve the applicant's land titles.
2. Whether the consent judgment can be reviewed by the court.
3. What remedies are available to the parties.

Orders

• Application dismissed with costs to the respondent.
• Respondent free to levy execution of the consent decree against the applicant unless the applicant pays the monies due as stipulated in the consent judgment.
• Execution against the applicant's land comprised in Block 206 plot 2754 at Mpererwe to proceed by way of sale to recover the decretal amount within thirty days from the date of ruling.

Rules and key headnotes

Legislation cited (6)

• Civil Procedure Act Cap. 71 s.82
• Civil Procedure Act Cap. 71 s.98
• Civil Procedure Act Cap. 71 s.99
• Judicature Act Cap. 13 s.33
• Civil Procedure Rules S.I. 71-1 Order 46 rules 1, 2, 4, 8
• Civil Procedure Rules S.I. 71-1 Order 52 rules 1, 2, 3

Cases cited (5)

• Ismail Sunderji Hirani v Noorali Esmail Kassam [1952] EACA 131
• Dr. Karuhanga v N.I.C & Anor [2008] HCB 151
• Eleko Balume & 2 Others v Goodman Agencies Ltd & 2 Others (HCMA No. 12 of 2012)
• Hassanali v City Moto Accessories Ltd & Others [1972] EA 423
• Mugume Ben & Anor v Akankwasa Edward [2008] ULR 681

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