Wakilii

Salini Construction S.P.A v Bisons Consult International (HCT-00-MA 88 of 2008)

High Court · [2009] UGCOMMC 44 · 2009 Application Dismissed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Application under section 98 of the Civil Procedure Act and Order 52 Rules 1 and 3 of the Civil Procedure Rules seeking review of a Consent Order
Decision
Application for review of consent order dismissed

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 consent order is a fresh agreement between parties and may only be interfered with on limited grounds such as fraud, mistake, misapprehension, or contravention of court policy. Failure of negotiations, court delays, and general interests of justice do not constitute exceptional circumstances justifying review of a consent order. The words 'until further orders from Court' in the consent order should be given their natural meaning, and the court will not read into them an intention to review the order upon failure of negotiations when no such express provision was included by the parties.

Outcome

Application for review of consent order dismissed

Facts

The parties entered into an agreement whereby the respondent agreed to supply 30,000 tons of rock-fill material within a three-kilometer radius for the Northern Bypass Project. The parties later agreed orally that the respondent would supply extra materials beyond three kilometers, but did not agree on the transportation rate. This dispute resulted in HCCS No. 790 of 2006, in which the respondent claimed shs. 535,646,848. The Registrar entered default judgment against the applicant on 24th April 2007 for failure to file a defence. A garnishee order was served on 27th November 2007 attaching the applicant's Barclays Bank account. While challenging the default judgment, the parties reached a consent order on 29th November 2008, whereby the applicant was permitted to file a defence in exchange for the respondent's security. The applicant then sought to review the consent order on grounds that negotiations failed, the suit would take long to be heard, and it was in the interest of justice to allow access to the frozen funds.

Issues

  1. Whether the court should review paragraphs 4 and 6 of the Consent Order dated 3rd December 2007.
  2. Whether the failure of negotiations for amicable settlement, delay in hearing the main suit, and interests of justice constitute sufficient grounds to review a consent order.
  3. Whether the defendant's bank account should be unfrozen to allow access to funds pending disposal of the main suit.

Orders

  • Application dismissed.
  • Costs awarded to the respondent.

Rules and key headnotes

Consent Orders — Nature and Finality — Grounds for Review
A consent order is treated as a fresh agreement between parties and has the nature of a contract which may only be interfered with on limited grounds such as fraud, mistake, misapprehension, contravention of court policy, or if consent was given without sufficient facts or in ignorance of material facts.
Consent Orders — Review — Failure of Negotiations Not a Ground
Failure of negotiations for amicable settlement, delay in hearing the main suit, and general interests of justice do not constitute exceptional circumstances that would justify the review of a consent order reached by parties with the assistance of counsel.
Consent Orders — Interpretation — Plain Meaning Rule
Words in a consent order that are clear and unambiguous should be given their natural meaning, and the court will not read into them an intention that the parties did not expressly include among the agreed terms.
Inherent Powers of Court — Exercise of Discretion — Review of Consent Orders
The court's inherent power to review consent orders is discretionary and should be exercised judicially, with relief granted only where failure to do so would deny a right or do injustice; the court will not exercise this power where granting relief would leave a party's claim without security.

Legislation cited (3)

Cases cited (5)

  • Hirani v Kassam (1952) E.A. 131
  • Brooke Bond Liesbig (T) Ltd v Mallya (1957) E.A. 266
  • Mohammed Alibhai v W.E. Bukenya and Another (Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 56 of 1996)
  • Attorney General and The Uganda Land Commission v James Mark Kamoga and James Kamala (Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 8 of 2004)
  • National Union of Clerical, Commercial, Professional & Technical Employees v National Insurance Corporation (Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 17 of 1993)

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Salini Construction S.P.A v Bisons Consult International (HCT-00-MA 88 of 2008) [2009] UGCommC 44 (23 February 2009)
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.