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.
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…
Zawedde and Another v Kisenyi and 5 Others (Miscellaneous Application 656 of 2022) [2023] UGHCFD 167 (20 September 2023)
Court
HC: Family Division (Uganda)
Case number
Miscellaneous Application 656 of 2022
Judge
Nagawa, J
The High Court declined to review and set aside a consent judgment in an estate dispute, finding no sufficient ground such as fraud, mistake, or material non-disclosure.
Ziikwa v The Registered Trustees of the Redeemed Church of Christ and Others (Miscellaneous Application 166 of 2019) [2022] UGHCLD 312 (14 March 2022)
Court
HC: Land Division (Uganda)
Case number
Miscellaneous Application 166 of 2019
Judge
Ojok, J
The court found that the consent order in Miscellaneous Application No. 153 of 2019 was entered into by advocates without the knowledge, consent, or presence of the parties, specifically the applicant, who had already changed advocates prior to the signing of the consent. The absence of party signatures and the lack of evidence that the applicant authorized his former lawyer to act in the subsequent matter rendered the consent order illegal and a product of collusion between advocates. The court held that a consent order must be made with the parties' consent and presence, and that advocates…
Kampala Capital City Authority v Nabimara & 10 Others (MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATIONS NO.321,322,323,324,325,326,327,328, 329,331 & 332 OF 2019) [2020] UGHCCD 84 (8 May 2020)
Court
HC: Civil Division (Uganda)
Case number
MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATIONS NO.321,322,323,324,325,326,327,328, 329,331 & 332 OF 2019
Judge
Musa Ssekaana, J
The court found that the applicant was bound by the actions and representations of its officials, who had authority to negotiate and execute the consent judgments. There was no credible evidence of fraud, misrepresentation, or mistake sufficient to warrant review or setting aside of the consent judgments. The applicant's claims of lack of management approval and discovery of new evidence were unsubstantiated and amounted to an afterthought. The court held that the applicant was estopped from denying the authority of its officials and that the application for review constituted an abuse of cou…
Isaya & 2 Ors v Macekenyu [2019] UGSC 18 (29 August 2019)
Court
Supreme Court of Uganda
Dissenting opinion on a Supreme Court review application in a land dispute, finding the majority judgment caused a miscarriage of justice and should be recalled.
Jubilee Estates Ltd Vs Zion Construction Ltd & 4 Ors (Miscellaneous Cause No. 38 of 2018) [2019] UGHCLD 331 (5 June 2019)
Court
HC: Land Division (Uganda)
Case number
Miscellaneous Cause No. 38 of 2018
Judge
Kawesa, J
The court found that the applicant, having been joined as a co-defendant to the head suit due to her necessary interest in the suit land, was improperly excluded from the consent judgment entered by the respondents. The 1st, 2nd, and 3rd respondents had knowledge of the applicant's claim, as evidenced by service of her written statement of defence and counterclaim, yet proceeded to compromise the suit and distribute the land without her participation. This exclusion amounted to collusion, which constitutes sufficient cause for review and setting aside of the consent judgment under Section 82…
Katuramu v Katuramu (Hct – 01 – Cv – Ma No. 026 of 2017) [2018] UGHCLD 55 (10 September 2018)
Court
HC: Land Division (Uganda)
Case number
Hct – 01 – Cv – Ma No. 026 of 2017
Judge
Masalu Musene, J
The High Court refused to review a consent judgment declaring land family land, finding no mistake of fact or sufficient cause and dismissing the application with costs.
Guangdong Chinese Co. Ltd v Mcnightegenies Ltd & 2 Ors (Civil Revision No. 11 of 2011) [2012] UGHC 20 (17 February 2012)
Court
High Court of Uganda
Case number
Civil Revision No. 11 of 2011
Judge
Mwangusya, J
High Court revision application over a motor-vehicle execution dispute was dismissed. The court found no illegality or material irregularity in the magistrate’s orders.
