Wakilii

Waswa Robert Kigayaza Administrator of the Estate of Kigayaza Eldad Ssentongo v L. Kakooza Jonathan and Others (Civil Reference No. 20 of 2020)

Supreme Court · [2026] UGSC 30 · 2026 Application Dismissed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Civil reference from decision of a single justice arising from multiple interlocutory applications following Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 14 of 2010
Decision
Application dismissed; erroneous consent decree corrected to exclude land not covered by the original Supreme Court judgment; warrant of vacant possession declared void

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 Supreme Court by a majority of four to one dismissed the application on grounds that the supporting affidavit was defective for non-compliance with the Illiterates Protection Act and that the application sought to adduce new evidence. The Court, exercising inherent powers under Rule 2(2) and Rule 35 of the Supreme Court Rules, corrected the consent decree dated 15th September 2015 to delete reference to the one square mile of land not covered by the Court's judgment in Civil Appeal No. 14 of 2010, and declared null and void the warrant for vacant possession issued by the Supreme Court Registry.

Outcome

Application dismissed; erroneous consent decree corrected to exclude land not covered by the original Supreme Court judgment; warrant of vacant possession declared void

Facts

This Court delivered judgment in Civil Appeal No. 14 of 2010 on 8th July 2015 concerning 3 square miles of land. The judgment recognized that 1 square mile comprised in LRV 3665 Folio 22 Plot 4 at Nampiki, Nakasongola had been sold to a third party (the Applicant's deceased father) with the acquiescence of the parties. On 15th September 2015, the parties executed a consent settlement that wrongly included the said 1 square mile. On 27th July 2018, the Supreme Court Registry issued a warrant for vacant possession based on the erroneous consent decree, resulting in eviction of the Applicant from the land. The Applicant filed Miscellaneous Application No. 12 of 2019 which was allowed by a single Justice. Multiple interlocutory applications followed, prompting a directive that the Applicant file the instant reference to consolidate all pending claims.

Issues

  1. Whether the affidavit in support of the application is incurably defective for non-compliance with the Illiterates Protection Act.
  2. Whether the application is an abuse of court process due to parallel proceedings in the High Court.
  3. Whether the Applicant has locus standi to present this application.
  4. Whether the application is incompetent since it seeks to adduce new evidence.
  5. Whether a single Justice of the Supreme Court had jurisdiction to correct an error in a judgment passed by a full bench.
  6. Whether the consent decree dated 15th September 2015 validly included land that was not part of the suit land in Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 14 of 2010.
  7. Whether the warrant for vacant possession issued by the Supreme Court Registry was ultra vires.

Orders

  • The Orders of the learned Single Justice issued vide Miscellaneous Application No. 12 of 2019 are hereby set aside.
  • The Consent Order relating to Civil Appeal No. 14 of 2010 is hereby recalled and corrected to delete the reference to, and inclusion of, the 1 square mile of land comprised in LRV 3665 Folio 22 Plot 4, land at Nampiki - Nakasongola District.
  • The warrant of vacant possession issued by the Supreme Court Registry on 27/07/2018 is hereby declared null and void, and is vacated.
  • Each party shall bear their own costs.
  • The application is dismissed.

Rules and key headnotes

Affidavits — Illiterates Protection Act — Certificate of Translation
Where an affidavit is sworn by an illiterate person, Section 3 of the Illiterates Protection Act requires the certificate of translation together with the full name and address of the writer to be written on the same document signed by the deponent. Failure to comply with this mandatory statutory requirement renders the affidavit defective and liable to be struck out.
Decrees — Relationship between Judgments and Decrees
A decree is a purely derivative instrument drawing its essence from the parent judgment. To the extent that a decree deviates from the judgment by adding land parcels or modifying liabilities not sanctioned in the text of the judgment, it is ultra vires and an absolute nullity.
Consent Orders — Variation of Final Judgments
Parties cannot by private consent reverse, vary, or modify a final, binding judgment of the Supreme Court. While parties may freely compromise their claims prior to adjudication, once the Supreme Court as the final appellate court delivers its judgment, that decision stands as the absolute legal truth of the matter.
Jurisdiction of Single Justice — Supreme Court
Under Section 8(1) of the Judicature Act, the powers of a Single Justice of the Supreme Court are restricted to any interlocutory cause or matter before the Court. Where a civil appeal has been fully heard and determined, the Court is functus officio and any substantive correction of the record requires the constitution of a full panel in alignment with Article 131 of the Constitution.
Slip Rule — Correction of Errors in Decrees
Under Rule 35(2) of the Supreme Court Rules, the Court has express authority to correct a non-conforming decree at any time, either upon application or on its own motion, where the decree does not correspond with the judgment it purports to embody. This power may be exercised to correct clerical errors or accidental slips arising from the court's own registry.
Execution — Appellate Courts
Appellate courts are not the executing courts. Under Sections 29 and 30 of the Civil Procedure Act, where a decree to be executed has been passed in the exercise of appellate jurisdiction, the court of first instance is deemed the court which passed the decree for purposes of execution. A court registry that extracts a consent decree and issues a warrant for vacant possession acts ultra vires and without jurisdiction.
Illiterates Protection Act — Purpose and Application
The Illiterates Protection Act was enacted to protect illiterate individuals from fraud, manipulation, and overreaching by literate persons. Section 4 of the Act imposes criminal penalties strictly on the writer who fails to comply with the mandatory requirements, and the statute is silent on invalidating the document to the detriment of the illiterate person.

Legislation cited (6)

Cases cited (11)

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Waswa Robert Kigayaza Administrator of the Estate of Kigayaza Eldad Ssentongo v L. Kakooza Jonathan and Others (Civil Reference No. 20 of 2020) [2026] UGSC 30 (23 July 2026)
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.