Wakilii

Ronnie David Ssesanga v Eva Nassanga and Others (Miscellaneous Application 933 of 2024)

High Court · [2025] UGHCFD 187 · 2025 Application Granted AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Application for review and setting aside of a clause in a consent judgment under Section 82 of the Civil Procedure Act and Order 46 rules 1 & 8, Order 52 rules 1 & 3 of the Civil Procedure Rules
Decision
Consent judgment set aside; applicant's beneficial interest in the suit land preserved pending determination of Civil Suit No. 141 of 2020

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

Held that a third party beneficiary to an estate who was deprived of land bequeathed to him by a consent judgment to which he was not a party may apply for review under the inherent powers of the court. Where administrators of an estate colluded to deprive a beneficiary of his interest in land clearly bequeathed to him by will, the consent judgment is liable to be set aside on grounds analogous to those for rescinding a contract.

Outcome

Consent judgment set aside; applicant's beneficial interest in the suit land preserved pending determination of Civil Suit No. 141 of 2020

Facts

The applicant was bequeathed land comprised in Kibuga Block 8, plots 1416, 1418, and 1419 at Mengo by the late David Sekatembe Kikomeko Musoke alias Mukubira in his will dated 3 May 1995. The land formed part of the estate of the late Eunice Nabunya Najja, of which Mukubira was administrator. After Mukubira's death, his co-administrators (including the 1st respondent) entered into a consent judgment on 4 May 2010 in MA No. 14 of 2010, whereby they agreed to give the suit land to the family of the 3rd respondent. The applicant was not a party to that application and was never served with court process. He had been in actual possession of the land since 1984 and had developed it. The applicant only learned of the consent judgment during the pendency of his own suit (CS No. 141 of 2020) seeking recovery of the land. He then brought this application to review and set aside the clause in the consent judgment that deprived him of his beneficial interest.

Issues

  1. Whether there is justification for the court to review, set aside, and or expunge clause (a)(iv)(c) of the consent judgment dated 4 May 2010.

Orders

  • The consent judgment entered on 4 May 2010 vide MA No. 14 of 2010 is set aside.
  • Costs of this application shall be borne by the respondents.

Rules and key headnotes

Civil Procedure — Review of Judgments — Consent Judgments — Grounds for Setting Aside
A consent judgment derives its legal effect from the agreement of the parties and may only be set aside on the same grounds upon which a contract may be set aside or rescinded, including collusion, fraud, and any other reason that the court would consider to rescind a contract.
Civil Procedure — Review of Judgments — Third Party Applications — Locus Standi
A third party to a consent judgment who has suffered a legal grievance may apply for review under the inherent powers of the court. A person aggrieved must be one against whom a decision has been pronounced which has wrongfully deprived him of something or wrongfully affected his title.
Succession & Estates — Administration of Estates — Administrators' Powers — Collusion to Deprive Beneficiary
Where administrators of an estate collude to deprive a beneficiary of his interest in property clearly bequeathed to him by will through a consent judgment to which the beneficiary was not a party, the consent judgment is liable to be set aside.

Legislation cited (5)

  • Civil Procedure Act s.82
  • Civil Procedure Rules O.46 r.1
  • Civil Procedure Rules O.46 r.8
  • Civil Procedure Rules O.52 r.1
  • Civil Procedure Rules O.52 r.3

Cases cited (5)

  • Ken Group of Companies Ltd v Standard Chartered Bank and 2 Others (HCMA No. 116 of 2012)
  • Hirani v Kassam (1952) 19 EACA 313
  • Goodman Agencies Limited v Attorney General and Hassa Agencies (K) Ltd (Constitutional Petition No. 3 of 2008)
  • Ladak Abdulla Muhammad Hussein v Griffiths Isingoma Kakiiza & 2 Others (Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 8 of 1995)
  • Ex parte Side Botham, In re Side Botham (1880) 14 Ch D 458

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Ronnie David Ssesanga v Eva Nassanga and Others (Miscellaneous Application 933 of 2024) [2025] UGHCFD 187 (26 November 2025)
Source: this page presents Wakilii’s issue analysis and metadata for a publicly reported Ugandan judgment. Any AI-generated summary is marked as such. Judgment text is sourced from the Uganda Legal Information Institute (ulii.org). Wakilii is not affiliated with ULII.