Turyagumanawe & 6 Ors v Attorney General & Anor
Turyagumanawe & 6 Ors v Attorney General & Anor (MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION No. 559 OF 2016) [2017] UGHCCD 68 (3 April 2017)
The application is dismissed on multiple grounds. First, the absence of a representative order renders the application incompetent under Order 1 rule 8 of the Civil Procedure Rules. Second, the 2nd respondent, Uganda Wildlife Authority, was not party to the consent judgment and cannot be bound or sued in relation to it due to the doctrine of privity of contract. Third, the 3549 paid beneficiaries are not parties to the application, making any orders unenforceable and academic. Fourth, the grounds advanced by the applicants—mistake and misrepresentation—do not meet the legal threshold for sett…
Source excerpt
- Consent Judgment Review
- Privity Of Contract
- Representative Order Requirement
- Misrepresentation
- Mistake Of Fact