Share
Good man Agencies Limited v Attorney General (Miscellaneous Application No. 131 of 2021) [2021] UGCommC 130 (4 January 2021)
- Citation
- [2021] UGCommC 130
- Status
- Judgment
- Jurisdiction
- Uganda
- Court
- Commercial Court of Uganda
- Panel
- Wabwire, J
- Case number
- Miscellaneous Application No. 131 of 2021
- Language
- English
More details
- Court
- Commercial Court of Uganda
- Panel
- Wabwire, J
- Case number
- Miscellaneous Application No. 131 of 2021
- Language
- English
On this page
Professional case brief
Research organized from the available case record
01
Holding and result
The court found that the parties had freely and amicably agreed to vary the interest rate on the decretal amount from 6% to 3% per annum and had signed a consent variation order reflecting this agreement. The application was uncontested, and both parties confirmed their attendance at negotiation meetings and their desire for the variation. The court was satisfied that the proposed variation did not prejudice either party and that the requirements for endorsement under section 98 CPA and Order 52 CPR were met. Therefore, the court exercised its mandate to endorse the consent variation order, making the agreed terms enforceable.
Court disposition
application_granted
Orders
- The consent variation order reducing interest from 6% to 3% per annum on the decretal amount is endorsed by the court.
- Each party will bear its own costs.
02
Material facts
Parties
Goodman Agencies Ltd
Applicant Counsel: Saad Seninde, Esta TayebwaAttorney General
Respondent Counsel: Franklin Uwizera (holding brief for George Kalemera)Amounts and remedies
- Interest Rate Reduction: 3
03
Procedural history
Posture
Miscellaneous Application / Ruling
04
Questions and positions
Legal issues
- 01
Whether the court should endorse the consent variation order agreed upon by the parties.
- 02
Whether the reduction of interest from 6% to 3% per annum on the decretal amount is enforceable upon court endorsement.
Party arguments
- Applicant
- The applicant argued that the parties mutually agreed to lower the interest rate on the decretal amount from 6% per annum to 3% per annum and that for the variation to be enforceable, the court must endorse the consent variation order. The application was supported by affidavit and the applicant's representatives confirmed their free will and desire for the variation.
- Respondent
- The respondent did not contest the application and confirmed that the terms of the consent variation order were agreed upon following a meeting between the parties. The respondent was agreeable to the terms and sought the court's endorsement of the order.
05
Court’s reasoning
Legal principles
- 01
Section 98 Civil Procedure Act; Order 52 rules 1, 2 and 3 Civil Procedure Rules
A consent judgment or order may be varied by mutual agreement of the parties, subject to court endorsement to ensure enforceability.
- 02
Ruling of Justice Musota, J in MA 361 of 2015
Court's mandate to endorse consent orders where parties have freely and amicably agreed to the terms, provided no prejudice is caused.
06
Ratio, limits and disposition
Ratio decidendi
The court found that the parties had freely and amicably agreed to vary the interest rate on the decretal amount from 6% to 3% per annum and had signed a consent variation order reflecting this agreement. The application was uncontested, and both parties confirmed their attendance at negotiation meetings and their desire for the variation. The court was satisfied that the proposed variation did not prejudice either party and that the requirements for endorsement under section 98 CPA and Order 52 CPR were met. Therefore, the court exercised its mandate to endorse the consent variation order, making the agreed terms enforceable.
Obiter and limits
- The endorsement of the consent variation order does not prejudice either party since the terms were amicably agreed upon.
- Each party will bear its own costs, reflecting the consensual nature of the application.
Court disposition
application_granted
- The consent variation order reducing interest from 6% to 3% per annum on the decretal amount is endorsed by the court.
- Each party will bear its own costs.
Source and reliance status
Commercial Court of Uganda
This page organises the available record for research. Confirm quotations, current status, and subsequent treatment against the official source before relying on the case.
Judgment reading view
Judgment text
The complete available source text.
Commercial Court of Uganda
Judgment
THE REPUBLIC OF UGANDA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF UGANDA AT KAMPALA
(COMMERCIAL COURT DIVISION)
MISC APPLICATION 131 OF 2021
(ARISING FROM MA 659 OF 2012)
(ARISING FROM MA 355 OF 2012)
(ARISING FROM HCCS 719 OF 1997)
GOODMAN AGENCIES LTD……………………………….…APPLICANT
VERSUS
1. ATTORNEY GENERAL ………………………………RESPONDENT
BEFORE THE HON. MR. JUSTICE RICHARD WEJULI WABWIRE
RULING
This Application was brought under section 98 CPA and Order 52 rules 1, 2 and 3 CPR seeking orders that a consent variation order entered by the parties be endorsed by this Court.
Franklin Uwizera – State Attorney holding brief for George Kalemera-Commissioner for Civil Litigation at the Attorney General's Cambers, appeared for the Respondents while Saad Seninde and Esta Tayebwa appeared for the Applicants.
The Applicants were represented by three shareholders, namely;
1. Mark Mutibwa National ID No. CM93031101NY , Card No. 020643983
- 2. Carlson Ngolobe- who said he had lost his National Identity Card. Counsel Esta Tayebwa and Saad Seninde confirmed his identity and undertook to place a copy of his driving permit on file. - 3. Nicholas Were National ID card no. CM630121010U0D, Card No. 000956181
The Respondent was represented by Tereza Namwach, a Principal Economist which the Ministry of Finance Planning and Economic Development ( Government of Uganda), ID No. 008/461 issued/signed by the Permanent Secretary / Secretary to the Treasury.
The Application is supported by the Affidavit of Edward Labeja , an Advocate working with Okecha Baranyanga & Co Advocates who are counsel for the Applicants.
The grounds for the Application stated therein briefly are that the parties have agreed to lower the interest awarded on the consented decretal amount from 6% per annum to 3% per annum and that for the variation to be enforceable, Court ought to endorse the Consent Variation.
The Application is not contested and Counsel for the Respondents confirmed that the terms thereof had been arrived at following a meeting between the parties and were agreeable to the Respondents.
The parties have signed the Consent Variation Order and now seek courts endorsement.
I have confirmed from the representatives of the parties who were present in court that they attended the negotiation meetings that indeed what is expressed in the Consent Variation Order and in this Application is their free will and desire.
I have also satisfied myself, from the Ruling of Justice Musota, J, as he then was, delivered in MA 361 of 2015, that indeed the parties entered a Consent Judgment by which the Applicants were awarded the sums indicated in the Consent Variation order now before this court.
In my opinion, the proposed Consent Variation does not prejudice either parties since they amicably agreed to the terms thereof.
In the event, in exercise of this Courts mandate under section 98 CPA, the prayer sought to have the Consent Variation Order endorsed is granted.
Each party will bear its own costs.
Delivered at Kampala and signed copies for the parties placed on file this 4 th day of January, 2021.
………………………………………………………
RICHARD WEJULI WABWIRE
JUDGE
Case-aware research
Ask AI about this case
The judgment and available research above are public. New questions open in a separate private conversation grounded in this case.