Search judgments by proposition, citation, court, judge or legal topic, then move directly into the source-grounded case analysis.
Results update automatically as you type.
Uganda decisions
Decisions matching the current search
Nasari v Kabere & 4 Others (Miscellaneous Application 5 of 2024) [2025] UGHC 73 (27 February 2025)
The High Court dismissed an application to review and set aside a consent judgment, finding no proved collusion, fraud, or apparent error on the record.
Onyango v Registered Trustees of soroti Catholic Diocese and Another (Miscellaneous Application 45 of 2024) [2025] UGHC 82 (24 February 2025)
The court found that the applicant failed to adduce any material evidence to prove fraud, misrepresentation, or collusion in the execution of the consent judgment. Mere allegations without supporting evidence are insufficient to vitiate a consent judgment, especially where the applicant and his father were not parties to the original suit or consent. The court also noted the inordinate delay of 11 years in bringing the application, which further undermined the applicant's case. In the absence of compelling evidence and given the binding nature of consent judgments, the application was dismiss…
Source excerpt
China Changquing International Construction Corporation Limited v Karongo (Miscellaneous Application 118 of 2021) [2024] UGHC 166 (12 April 2024)
The High Court refused to review a consent judgment on stone-blasting compensation, holding that the applicant had not proved new evidence or any ground to set it aside.
Nakato and Another v Mukasa and Another (HCT Misc App 39 of 2023) [2023] UGHC 104 (23 October 2023)
The court found that the applicants were not parties to the original suit and failed to demonstrate a legitimate connection or locus standi to the suit land. Their claim of beneficial interest was considered an afterthought, as they had notice of the proceedings involving 97 plaintiffs but did not join the suit at the appropriate time. The court determined that Mukasa Mathew acted in his own right as owner and heir, and the absence of letters of administration did not negate his standing. No evidence of fraud, misrepresentation, or mistake was established in the procurement of the consent jud…
Source excerpt
Musaazi and 9 Others v Lwasa Kaweesi (Miscellaneous Application No. 881 of 2022) [2022] UGHCLD 194 (29 September 2022)
The High Court set aside a consent judgment in a land dispute, expunged an unauthorised defence from the record, and directed the suit to proceed on the merits.
Mayanja v Lubanga (Miscellaneous Application No. 2131 of 2021) [2022] UGHCLD 162 (17 August 2022)
The High Court declined to review and set aside a consent judgment, finding the applicant’s claim of illiteracy and lack of understanding was not credible.
Namatovu v Kasasa and 2 Others (Miscellaneous Application No. 59 of 2021) [2021] UGHCCD 216 (3 December 2021)
The court found that the applicant did not voluntarily consent to the addition of another administrator, as evidenced by her objections during mediation and lack of agreement to the consent judgment. The applicant's protest and steps to avoid the consent demonstrated that her will was coerced, amounting to duress and undue influence. The consent judgment was therefore invalid as it was not entered into freely by all parties. The court emphasized the importance of family consensus and proper procedure in succession matters, particularly where the interests of children and beneficiaries are at…
Source excerpt
Bet City (U) Limited and Another v Swangz Avenue (U) Limited (Civil Miscellaneous Application No. 1177 of 2020) [2021] UGCommC 46 (14 July 2021)
The High Court struck out the applicants’ supporting affidavit for central falsehoods and dismissed the application to review and set aside a consent judgment with costs.
Katuramu v Katuramu (Miscellaneous Application 26 of 2017) [2018] UGHC 36 (10 September 2018)
The High Court refused to review a consent judgment declaring Katumba land family land, finding no mistake of fact, no abuse of process, and dismissing the application with costs.
Kayondo & Ors v The Administrator General & Anor (Miscellaneous Application No. 27 of 2016) [2016] UGHCFD 18 (28 June 2016)
The court found that the affidavit in reply by Mr. Mutyaba Sempa was incurably defective and incompetent due to the absence of written authority from the 2nd respondent and the presence of falsehoods. This rendered the application undefended by the 2nd respondent, amounting to an admission of the applicants' averments. The evidence established that the consent judgment, decree, and order were procured without disclosure of a material lease extension, constituting misrepresentation and concealment of material facts. The applicants demonstrated new and important evidence affecting their rights…
Source excerpt
