Wakilii

Uganda Registration Services Bureau and Another v MSS Xsabo Power Limited (Miscellaneous Application No. 43 of 2024)

High Court · [2024] UGHC 1286 · 2024 Application Dismissed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Application to vacate and set aside a consent interim order issued pursuant to Miscellaneous Application No. 40 of 2024
Decision
Application to vacate consent interim order dismissed; consent order remains in force

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

Application to set aside a consent interim order dismissed. The court held that counsel Muheki Stella acted with sufficient material facts when consenting to the interim injunction on 18 November 2024. No second ruling was delivered on 15 November 2024 as claimed by the applicants. Counsel's actions as agent bound her principals. Applicants cannot seek to vacate the consent order while retaining rights under other parts of it.

Outcome

Application to vacate consent interim order dismissed; consent order remains in force

Facts

Company Petition No. 5 of 2020 was filed by Great Lakes Energy Company N.V. before the Registrar of Companies seeking rectification of the register by expunging resolutions allegedly executed to revoke its 96 shares in MSS Xsabo Power Limited. The Assistant Registrar issued a ruling on 8 November 2024 dismissing the petition. On 12 November 2024, the Registrar General recalled the ruling claiming it was issued contrary to her directive. On 15 November 2024, MSS Xsabo Power Limited obtained an administrative interim order maintaining status quo until 18 November 2024. On 18 November 2024, counsel Stella Muheki representing the applicants appeared in court and consented to an interim injunction until final determination of the main cause. The applicants then sought to set aside this consent order claiming counsel Muheki signed it by mistake and without knowledge that a second ruling had been delivered on 15 November 2024.

Issues

  1. Whether the application satisfies grounds for setting aside a consent order?
  2. What remedies are available to the parties?

Orders

  • Application dismissed with costs.
  • Right of appeal explained.

Rules and key headnotes

Civil Procedure — Consent Orders — Setting Aside — Grounds
A consent order made in the presence and with consent of counsel is prima facie binding on all parties and cannot be varied or discharged unless obtained by fraud or collusion, contrary to the policy of the court, or if consent was given without sufficient material facts, in misapprehension or ignorance of material facts, or for a reason which would enable a court to set aside an agreement.
Civil Procedure — Agency — Counsel Acting for Litigant — Binding Effect
Advocates are for all intents and purposes agents of the litigants, and their actions in representing clients before court bind their principals. Where counsel appears in court pursuant to effective service and enters into a consent order, the litigant cannot later disavow that consent absent proof of lack of authority or mistake of material fact.
Civil Procedure — Mistake of Fact — Setting Aside Consent Orders
For mistake of fact to be a ground for setting aside a consent order, the mistake must be apparent on the face of the record. It must be an error so manifest and clear that no court would permit it to remain on record. A party cannot claim mistake where counsel had sufficient material facts to act and the alleged contradictory facts do not appear on the record.
Civil Procedure — Approbation and Reprobation — Inconsistent Positions
A party cannot approbate and reprobate by seeking to vacate one part of a consent order while retaining benefits under another part of the same order. A party cannot blow hot and cold over the same document.

Legislation cited (12)

Cases cited (7)

  • Attorney General and Another v James Mark Kamoga (Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 8 of 2004)
  • Hirani v Kassim [1952] E.A 131
  • Niolecom Limited v Kodjo Enterprises Ltd (Civil Suit No. 18 of 2014)
  • Nyakake v Kisembo (Miscellaneous Application No. 39 of 2016)
  • Edison Kanyabwera v Pastori Tumwebaze (Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 6 of 2004)
  • Mohammed Alibhai v WE Bukenya and Another (Civil Appeal No. 56 of 1996)
  • Nanjibbi Prabhudas & Co Ltd v Standard Bank [1968] E.A

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Uganda Registration Services Bureau and Another v MSS Xsabo Power Limited (Miscellaneous Application No. 43 of 2024) [2024] UGHC 1286 (15 July 2024)
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.