Wakilii

Salim Rashid v Lokiri Luke Mikaire and Others (Miscellaneous Cause No. 12 of 2017)

High Court · [2025] UGHC 645 · 2025 Application Granted AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Application to set aside consent judgment and for joinder as party to underlying suit
Decision
Consent judgment set aside; applicant joined as defendant; matter remitted for full hearing on the merits

Observed later treatment

Cited — treatment unverified cited in 1 (treatment unverified) Sequitur — Uganda’s citator · Derived from citing cases in the Wakilii corpus — not an assertion that this case is good law.

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.

No adverse treatment recorded Cited 1 time with no adverse treatment recorded; not yet tested on the merits. Derived from citing cases in the Wakilii corpus — a deterministic signal, not legal advice.

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: A third party claiming an interest in land subject to a consent judgment has locus standi to seek its review if they can demonstrate a legal grievance. The consent judgment was obtained by collusion where parties knowingly executed it without involving a necessary party whose claim was known to them, intending to defeat that party's interest. The conduct was dishonest and material, affecting the core terms of the agreement. The applicant was joined as a defendant to enable complete adjudication of all issues.

Outcome

Consent judgment set aside; applicant joined as defendant; matter remitted for full hearing on the merits

Facts

The applicant purchased land from the 3rd respondent on 21st December 2015, receiving vacant possession, the duplicate certificate of title and signed transfer forms. The 1st respondent lodged a caveat on 31st December 2015. The applicant applied to the Chief Magistrate's Court to vacate the caveat. While that application was pending, the 1st and 2nd respondents filed suit in the High Court against the 3rd and 4th respondents claiming they had purchased the same land and that the 3rd respondent had fraudulently registered it in his own name. The 1st and 2nd respondents knew of the applicant's claim but did not join him as a party. On 27th March 2017, approximately two weeks after the Chief Magistrate ordered the caveat lifted, the parties executed a consent judgment transferring the land to the 1st and 2nd respondents without involving the applicant.

Issues

  1. Whether a third party who claims an interest in land subject to a consent judgment has locus standi to apply to set aside that consent judgment.
  2. Whether the consent judgment dated 27th March 2017 was obtained by collusion between the parties to the detriment of the applicant.
  3. Whether the applicant should be joined as a party to the underlying suit.

Orders

  • The consent judgment dated 27th March 2017 is set aside.
  • The applicant is joined as a defendant to Civil Suit No. 52 of 2016.
  • The applicant is granted seven days to file and serve a defence and counterclaim.
  • The respondents are granted eight days from service to file and serve a reply.
  • Parties to file trial bundles, witness statements and joint memorandum of scheduling within thirty days.
  • Hearing of the suit fixed for 23rd October 2025 at 9:00 am.
  • Costs of the application are in the cause.

Rules and key headnotes

Consent Judgments — Locus Standi of Third Parties — Setting Aside
Ordinarily third parties cannot apply to set aside a consent judgment or decree unless they have a direct interest in the case and can demonstrate how the decree impacts them. A third party who can prove that he or she suffered a legal grievance by virtue of the consent judgment may seek its review. A person claiming to be a purchaser of land subject to a consent judgment has a direct interest in the matter settled by that judgment and has locus standi to apply to set it aside.
Consent Judgments — Grounds for Setting Aside — Collusion
A consent judgment can only be set aside for reasons that would enable a court to set aside an agreement, including fraud, mistake, misapprehension, contravention of court policy, or collusion. Collusion involves a secret agreement between two or more parties to achieve a fraudulent or deceitful outcome, often at the expense of a third party. A judgment procured by collusion is one obtained by agreement of the parties in circumstances where if the facts were known, the court could not have endorsed it.
Consent Judgments — Collusion — Test for Establishing
The party alleging bad faith, fraud, or collusion must show both that there was conscious and deliberate dishonesty and that this dishonesty was material, meaning it was an operative cause in bringing about the consent judgment. The character and effect of collusion is not to be judged by dismembering it and viewing its separate parts, but only by looking at it as a whole. The circumstantial evidence must be viewed holistically.
Consent Judgments — Collusion — Dishonest Conduct
A party to litigation acts dishonestly if they intended to pursue a course of action either knowing it to be contrary to the legitimate best interests of a third party or being recklessly indifferent to such interests. Execution of a consent judgment without involving a party whose claim was known to the parties and was already before another court constitutes unreasonable conduct amounting to recklessness or indifference to that party's interest.
Consent Judgments — Materiality of Dishonesty
For collusion to be a valid reason for setting aside a consent judgment, the dishonesty must be material, meaning it must be related to the core terms or the very basis of the agreement and must be something that would have significantly influenced the court's decision if it had been known. Where the operative parts of a consent judgment affect negatively a third party's rival claim to property and the concealed claim would have significantly influenced the court's decision, the dishonesty is material.
Joinder of Parties — Necessary Parties — Test
Under Order 1 rule 10(2) of the Civil Procedure Rules, the Court may add a party whose presence in the suit is necessary to enable the Court to effectually and completely adjudicate upon and settle all questions involved in the suit. A necessary party is one without whom no order can be made effectively and whose rights are directly affected. Where a person claims to have purchased land that is the subject matter of a suit, their presence is necessary for complete adjudication and they should be joined as a party.

Legislation cited (8)

Cases cited (22)

  • Brooke Bond Liebeg (T) Ltd v Mallya [1975] EA 266
  • Jonesco v Beard [1930] AC 298
  • de Lasala v de Lasala [1980] AC 546
  • Hirani v Kassam [1952] EA 131
  • Attorney General v James Mark Kamoga and Others (Civil Appeal No. 8 of 2004)
  • Babigumira John and Others v Hoima Council [2001-2005] HCB 116
  • Pavement Civil Works Ltd v Andrew Kirungi (Miscellaneous Application No. 292 of 2002)
  • Yusufu v Nokrach [1971] EA 104
  • Re Nakivubo Chemists (U) Ltd [1979] HCB 12
  • Mohammed Allibhai v WE Bukenya and The Departed Asians Property Custodian Board (Civil Appeal No. 56 of 1996)
  • Tullow Uganda Ltd and Tullow Uganda Operators v Jackson Wabyona and Uganda Revenue Authority (Miscellaneous Application No. 197 of 2017)
  • Busoga Growers Co-operative Union Ltd v Nsamba & Sons Ltd (Miscellaneous Application No. 123 of 2000)
  • Edison Kanyabwera v Pastori Tumwebaze [2001-2005] HCB 98
  • Kenya Commercial Bank Ltd v Specialised Engineering Co Ltd [1982] KLR 485
  • Huddersfield Banking Co v Hy Lister & Sons [1895] 2 Ch 271
  • Wilding v Sanderson [1897] 2 Ch 534
  • Jet Holdings Inc v Patel [1990] 1 QB 335
  • Jubilee Estates Ltd v Zion Construction Ltd and Four Others (Miscellaneous Cause No. 38 of 2018)
  • Scott v Scott [1913] AC 417
  • Kayondo and Three Others v The Administrator General and Two Others (Miscellaneous Application No. 628 of 2016)
  • Departed Asians Property Custodian Board v Jaffer Brothers Ltd (Civil Appeal No. 9 of 1998)
  • Kampala International University v Hima Cement Limited (Civil Suit No. 304 of 2006)

Cases citing this judgment (1)

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.

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Salim Rashid v Lokiri Luke Mikaire and Others (Miscellaneous Cause No. 12 of 2017) [2025] UGHC 645 (1 July 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.