Pavement Civil Works Limited v Krungi (Misc.App.No.292 of 2002)
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
An application under Order 9 rule 24 of the Civil Procedure Rules does not lie to set aside a decree entered under summary procedure (Order 33 CPR). Such a decree is not an exparte decree where no leave to defend was sought or granted. A consent decree cannot be set aside by motion under Order 9 rule 24 but requires either a review application or a fresh suit.
Outcome
Application to set aside decree dismissed; decree and compromise order remain in force
Facts
The respondent plaintiff brought a summary suit against the applicant defendant company for debt. A director of the applicant company endorsed receipt of summons admitting the debt and pledging to arrange payment. The Registrar entered decree under Order 33 rule 3 for UGX 60,173,050. Subsequently a consent order of compromise and partial satisfaction was entered providing for payment by instalments. The applicant then brought this application under Order 9 rule 24 seeking to set aside both the decree and the compromise order, alleging they were exparte. The respondent raised preliminary objections that the application was incompetent as it concerned a summary suit decree which should be challenged under Order 33 rule 11, and that a consent decree can only be set aside by review.
Issues
- Whether an application under Order 9 rule 24 CPR is the proper procedure to set aside a decree entered under summary procedure (Order 33 CPR).
- Whether a consent decree can be set aside under Order 9 rule 24 CPR.
- Whether the decree in question was an exparte decree or a consent decree.
Orders
- Application dismissed.
- Costs awarded to the respondent.
- Interim order earlier granted is vacated.
Rules and key headnotes
Legislation cited (3)
Cases cited (3)
- Ladak Abdallah v Griffin Isingoma (Civil Appeal No. 8 of 1995)
- Naggitta Kafuma vs Kimbowa Builders & Contractors M.B. 189/73
- Magon vs Ottoman Bank (1958) EA 156
Full judgment
The original judgment as reported. Read the original PDF before relying on any passage.