Uganda Case Law

Makindye Sabagabo Municipal Council v Busenvi Enterprises Limited

Makindye Sabagabo Municipal Council v Busenvi Enterprises Limited (Miscellaneous Application 475 of 2022) [2025] UGHCCD 99 (16 July 2025)

Court

HC: Civil Division (Uganda)

Case number

Miscellaneous Application 475 of 2022

Judge

Bonny Isaac Teko, J

The court found that the Special Conditions of the Contract expressly excluded arbitration as a dispute resolution mechanism, providing instead for amicable settlement followed by recourse to the courts if necessary. The SCC superseded the General Conditions, rendering the arbitration clause inoperative and incapable of being performed. Both parties, by participating in mediation and entering a consent judgment, had submitted to the court's jurisdiction and were estopped from invoking the arbitration clause. The court held that the chain to arbitration was broken and that it retained jurisdic…

Source excerpt

• Arbitration Agreements
• Jurisdiction Of Courts
• Contractual Dispute Resolution
• Consent Judgments

Karusiba v Kamatenesi (Revision Application No. 01 of 2023)

Karusiba v Kamatenesi (Revision Application No. 01 of 2023) [2025] UGHC 201 (21 April 2025)

Court

High Court of Uganda

Case number

Revision Application No. 01 of 2023

Judge

Tweyanze, J

The High Court revised and set aside a magistrate’s ruling that had stopped execution, ordered restitution, and restrained entry onto land, finding jurisdictional error.

• Jurisdiction Of Magistrates Courts
• Execution Of Decrees
• Consent Judgments
• Land Ownership Disputes
• Jurisdiction
• Revision

Ssekyansanku & 12 Others v Aronda

Ssekyansanku & 12 Others v Aronda (Miscellaneous Application 196 of 2024) [2025] UGHC 146 (4 April 2025)

Court

High Court of Uganda

Case number

Miscellaneous Application 196 of 2024

Judge

Karemani Jamson K, J

The court found that the 1st to 7th applicants, though not parties to Miscellaneous Application No. 18 of 2022, were aggrieved by the consent temporary injunction order as it affected their interests and resulted in their eviction from the suit land. The 8th to 14th applicants also challenged the consent order, arguing that it was entered without their personal endorsement and without proper procedure. The court held that while an advocate may act on behalf of a party, the practice and fairness require that parties personally endorse consent orders, especially where substantial rights are aff…

Source excerpt

• Review Of Court Orders
• Consent Judgments
• Aggrieved Persons
• Procedural Irregularity
• Representation By Advocate

Mukhono v Kimono

Mukhono v Kimono (Civil Appeal 74 of 2021) [2025] UGCA 1 (23 January 2025)

Court

Court of Appeal of Uganda

Case number

Civil Appeal 74 of 2021

Judge

Cheborion-Barishaki, JA, Kazibwe, JA, Asa Mugenyi , JA/JCC

The Court of Appeal held that the High Court was correct in setting aside the consent decree in Civil Suit No. 46 of 2010. The underlying agreement for the development of the suit land was made with Mt. Elgon Mission, a non-existent entity, rendering the contract and the subsequent suit illegal. According to binding Ugandan authority, an illegality taints not only the original agreement but also any consent decree arising from it. The appellant's argument that the consent decree constituted a fresh agreement immune from prior illegality was rejected, as the Supreme Court in Makula Internation…

Source excerpt

• Consent Judgments
• Illegality In Contracts
• Review Of Court Orders
• Land Development Agreements

Akello & Others v Egole & 7 Others

Akello & Others v Egole & 7 Others (Miscellaneous Application 105 of 2024) [2025] UGHC 12 (17 January 2025)

Court

High Court of Uganda

Case number

Miscellaneous Application 105 of 2024

Judge

Okello, J

The court held that the omission of the Attorney General, a party to the consent order sought to be reviewed and set aside, was fatal to the application. Proceeding in the absence of the Attorney General would violate the right to a fair hearing as protected by the Constitution. Even if the application were considered on its merits, the applicant failed to demonstrate that she or her colleagues were aggrieved by the consent order, as there was no evidence that the addition of the respondents as plaintiffs deprived them of their entitlements under the decree. The applicant also failed to prove…

Source excerpt

• Review Of Court Orders
• Consent Judgments
• Representative Actions
• Aggrieved Persons
• Fair Hearing
• Setting Aside Orders

Haji Katamba v Sheik Kalumba and 9 Others (Misc Cause 124 of 2019)

Haji Katamba v Sheik Kalumba and 9 Others (Misc Cause 124 of 2019) [2024] UGHCLD 147 (24 May 2024)

Court

HC: Land Division (Uganda)

Case number

Misc Cause 124 of 2019

Judge

Nassuna Matovu, J

The High Court held that the vendors were wrongly joined, and ordered caveats on the land to be removed after finding no basis to maintain them.

• Caveats
• Beneficiary Rights
• Registration Of Titles
• Consent Judgments
• Land-law
• Registration-of-titles-act

Kamulegeya v Twagirayesu

Kamulegeya v Twagirayesu (Miscellaneous Appeal 318 of 2024) [2024] UGCommC 113 (4 April 2024)

Court

Commercial Court of Uganda

Case number

Miscellaneous Appeal 318 of 2024

Judge

Stephen Mubiru, J

The High Court upheld execution against a judgment debtor, finding no proof of full payment and no fatal procedural defect in the arrest and imprisonment process.

• Execution Of Decrees
• Consent Judgments
• Interest On Decretal Sums
• Contract Rescission
• Enforcement Of Security
• Execution-of-decrees

Basiima and 2 Others (On Behalf of 138 Claimants) v Attorney General and Another

Basiima and 2 Others (On Behalf of 138 Claimants) v Attorney General and Another (Miscellaneous Application 465 of 2018) [2024] UGHCCD 44 (28 March 2024)

Court

HC: Civil Division (Uganda)

Case number

Miscellaneous Application 465 of 2018

Judge

Boniface Wamala, J

The High Court partly reviewed a consent judgment on terminal benefits, allowing relief for 18 verified claimants but refusing claims by 108 others and 13 unverified claimants.

• Review Of Judgments
• Consent Judgments
• Error Apparent On Record
• Terminal Benefits
• Liquidation
• Representative Actions

The estate of the late Charles James Mark Kamoga & Another v Attorney General & 9 Others

The estate of the late Charles James Mark Kamoga & Another v Attorney General & 9 Others (Civil Appeal 1 of 2022) [2024] UGSC 15 (1 February 2024)

Court

Supreme Court of Uganda

Case number

Civil Appeal 1 of 2022

Judge

Mwondha, JSC, Tibatemwa-Ekirikubinza, JSC, Mike Chibita, JSC, Elizabeth Musoke, JSC, Madrama , JSC

The Supreme Court held that Civil Suit No. 450 of 2016 was not res judicata because the issue of fraud had not been conclusively determined in any previous suit, and the consent judgment relied upon by the appellants was entered without the participation of all affected parties and was subsequently set aside. The Court found that the doctrine of res judicata requires a final judgment on the merits involving the same parties or their privies, which was absent here. On limitation, the Court determined that the suit was filed pursuant to a High Court order following protracted litigation, and th…

Source excerpt

• Res Judicata
• Limitation Of Actions
• Fraud In Land Transactions
• Consent Judgments

Yu Sung Construction Limited v Attorney General of the Republic of South Sudan (Appeal No. 11 of 2022)

Yu Sung Construction Limited v Attorney General of the Republic of South Sudan (Appeal No. 11 of 2022) [2023] EACJ 11 (27 November 2023) (Appellate Division)

Court

East African Court of Justice

Case number

Appeal No. 11 of 2022

Judge

Barishaki JA, Kayobera P, Mjasiri VP, Mugeni JA

The Appellate Division held that the consent judgment purportedly entered on 26th November 2020 was invalid because it was not sanctioned by a properly constituted quorum of the Trial Court as required by the Court Rules. There were no judicial proceedings or orders supporting the decree, and the Registrar's signature alone could not validate it. The doctrines of res judicata, functus officio, and approbation and reprobation did not apply because there was no valid judgment. The Trial Court was correct to set aside the consent judgment and to allow the respondent to file its response, as the…

Source excerpt

• Consent Judgments
• Review Of Judgments
• Jurisdiction Of Regional Courts
• Representation Of States
• Procedural Irregularities