Hirani v Kassam
Hirani v Kassam (Civil Appeal No. 11 of 1952) [1952] EACA 131 (1 January 1952)
Where a suit is settled by a compromise recorded under Order 24, rule 6, the resulting consent judgment constitutes a new contract between the parties, which supersedes the original cause of action. The court cannot interfere with the terms of such a compromise except on grounds that would justify varying or rescinding a contract, such as fraud, collusion, or material misapprehension. The mode of payment agreed upon in the consent judgment is an integral part of the contract and cannot be severed or altered by the court absent such grounds. No default in payment was established, as payments m…
Source excerpt
- Consent Judgment
- Compromise Agreement
- Enforcement Of Decrees
- Payment By Instalments
- Assignment Of Judgment Debt