Wakilii

Soroti Municipal Council v Akello and Another (Miscellaneous Application No. 14 of 2020)

High Court · [2022] UGHCCD 282 · 2022 Application Dismissed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Application for review of consent judgment entered in Civil Suit No. 41 of 2015
Decision
Application for review dismissed as lacking merit and overtaken by events

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

The High Court dismissed an application for review of a consent judgment, upholding preliminary objections based on inordinate delay and matters overtaken by events. The court held that where a consent judgment has been executed by consent of parties and no fraud is alleged, an application for review filed years later after all remedies have been exhausted constitutes an impermissible afterthought and cannot be sustained.

Outcome

Application for review dismissed as lacking merit and overtaken by events

Facts

On 21 October 2015, Akello Juliet and Akujo Betty sued Soroti Municipal Council in Civil Suit No. 41 of 2015 seeking declarations of ownership over land, permanent injunction, and compensation. The Municipal Council filed a defence claiming ownership and asserting it had already paid compensation to the family of the late Mzee Engwedu. On various dates the matter was adjourned until 2019 when the trial judge entered a consent judgment by agreement of all parties. Execution proceedings followed, including a decree nisi, decree absolute, and taxation of costs on 11 December 2019. The parties concluded the execution by consent. In 2020, the Municipal Council filed this application seeking review of the consent judgment, alleging error on the face of the record and claiming the judgment was entered without hearing the suit on merit.

Issues

  1. Whether the preliminary objections raised by the respondents are sustainable in law.
  2. Whether the judgment and orders in Civil Suit No. 41 of 2015 should be reviewed.

Orders

  • Application dismissed.
  • No order as to costs.

Rules and key headnotes

Preliminary Objections — Requirements for Raising Points of Law
A preliminary objection consists of points of law which have been pleaded, or which arise by clear implication out of the pleadings, and which if argued as a preliminary point may dispose of the suit. A defendant wishing to rely on points of law as a preliminary issue is required to set out such points of law in the written statement of defence before the preliminary issue is regarded as properly raised.
Technicalities — Wrong Citation of Law — Article 126(2)(e) Constitution
The citing of the wrong law is not fatal to an application where the error does not go to the root of the matter in dispute. Substantive justice shall be realised without undue regard to technicalities, and disputes must be heard and determined on merits rather than dismissed on technicalities.
Delay — Inordinate Delay in Filing Applications — Equity Aids the Vigilant
Where an applicant delays for years to file an application for review without sufficient explanation, and the reason given demonstrates lack of appreciation of procedural rules, such inordinate delay is fatal to the application. Equity aids the vigilant, and a party who sits on its rights and awakens years later cannot invoke the court's discretion in its favour.
Review of Judgment — Consent Judgments — Setting Aside Requirements
A consent judgment obtained in the presence and with the consent of counsel is binding on all parties and cannot be varied or discharged unless obtained by fraud, collusion, agreement contrary to policy of the court, or if consent was given without sufficient material facts, in misapprehension, or in ignorance of material facts. An application for review cannot succeed where no fraud or coercion is alleged or proven.
Review of Judgment — Functus Officio — Finality of Judicial Decisions
Once a validly-made final decision has been issued by the court, the court becomes functus officio and powerless to change it other than to correct obvious technical or clerical errors, or unless specifically authorised to do so by statute or regulations. The importance of finality of judicial decisions strongly militates against the existence of an inherent jurisdiction to set aside the court's own decisions. Such power must be vested by statute or rules specifying the limited circumstances in which it is exercisable.
Review of Judgment — Grounds for Review — Error Apparent on Face of Record
The power to review is a creature of statute under Section 82 Civil Procedure Act and Order 46 Civil Procedure Rules. An error apparent on the face of the record must be self-evident and should not require elaborate argument to be established. That the court proceeded on an incorrect exposition of law and reached an erroneous conclusion of law is not a proper ground for review but could be a proper ground for appeal, otherwise the court would be sitting in appeal on its own judgment which is not permissible in law.
Review of Judgment — Matters Overtaken by Events — Afterthought Applications
Where a consent judgment has been executed by consent of parties and all matters concluded, an application for review filed thereafter as an afterthought after inordinate delay lacks merit and is overtaken by events. All remedies which the applicant could seek must have been exhausted, and unless fraud is alleged, such an application cannot be sustained.

Legislation cited (9)

Cases cited (17)

  • Yaya Farajalla v Obur Ronald and 3 Others (Court of Appeal No. 81 of 2018)
  • Comfoam Uganda Ltd v Megha Industries (U) Ltd (High Court Miscellaneous Application No. 1084 of 2014)
  • Rosette Kizito v Administrator General and Another [1993] KALR 4
  • Kasirye & Byaruhanga and Co. Advocates v Uganda Development Bank (Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 2 of 1997)
  • Uganda Air Cargo Corporation v Moses Kirunda and 5 Others (Miscellaneous Application No. 385 of 2013)
  • Harani v Kasam (1952) EACA 131
  • F.X. Mubuuke v UEB (High Court Miscellaneous Application No. 98 of 2005)
  • Ladak Abdalla Mohammed Hussein v Isingoma Kakiiza (Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 8 of 1995)
  • Kaloli Tabuta v Transroad (Miscellaneous Application No. 478 of 2019)
  • National Bank of Kenya v Njau (1995-1998) 2 EA 249
  • Kalokala Kaloli v Nduga Robert (High Court Miscellaneous Application No. 497 of 2014)
  • Wadri v Nuru (Civil Appeal No. 45 of 2014)
  • Margret Senkunle v Musa Nakirya (High Court Review Case No. 7 of 2009)
  • Outa Levi v Uganda Transport Corporation [1975] HCB 353
  • Busoga Growers Cooperative Union v Nsamba & Sons Ltd (High Court Miscellaneous Application No. 123 of 2000)
  • Re Nakivubo Chemists V. Ltd [1979] HCB 12
  • Adonia v Mutekanga [1970] EA 429

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Soroti Municipal Council v Akello and Another (Miscellaneous Application No. 14 of 2020) [2022] UGHCCD 282 (7 June 2022)
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.