Uganda Case Law

Rusfar Trading Co. Limited v Chongqing International Construction Corporation Limited and Others

Rusfar Trading Co. Limited v Chongqing International Construction Corporation Limited and Others (Miscellaneous Application 1702 of 2021) [2023] UGCommC 71 (17 October 2023)

Court

Commercial Court of Uganda

Case number

Miscellaneous Application 1702 of 2021

Judge

Harriet Grace Magala, J

The High Court dismissed an application to set aside a consent judgment, holding that the applicant had not proved frustration, misrepresentation, or mistake.

• Consent Judgment
• Contract Frustration
• Breach Of Contract
• Misrepresentation
• Setting Aside Judgments
• Consent-judgment

olara v Omony

olara v Omony (Miscellaneous Application 1 of 2022) [2023] UGHCCD 290 (5 October 2023)

Court

HC: Civil Division (Uganda)

Case number

Miscellaneous Application 1 of 2022

Judge

Okello, J

The High Court dismissed an application to set aside a consent judgment, holding that none of the alleged grounds—illegality, misrepresentation, concealment, or lack of locus standi—was proved.

• Consent Judgment
• Setting Aside Judgments
• Loan Agreements
• Misrepresentation
• Illegality
• Locus Standi

Friendhelm Erwin Jost and Another v Roko Construction Limited and 2 Others

Friendhelm Erwin Jost and Another v Roko Construction Limited and 2 Others (Miscellaneous Civil Application 89 of 2021) [2022] UGCommC 110 (7 March 2022)

Court

Commercial Court of Uganda

Case number

Miscellaneous Civil Application 89 of 2021

Judge

Stephen Mubiru, J

The High Court set aside a consent judgment after finding material misrepresentation, mutual mistake, and enforceability problems arising from undisclosed settlement terms.

• Consent Judgments
• Setting Aside Judgments
• Shareholder Disputes
• Misrepresentation
• Mistake Of Fact
• Public Policy

Kagadi Seventh Day Adventist Church Association of Uganda v Kasumba

Kagadi Seventh Day Adventist Church Association of Uganda v Kasumba (Miscellaneous Application No. 56 of 2019) [2020] UGHC 51 (28 April 2020)

Court

High Court of Uganda

Case number

Miscellaneous Application No. 56 of 2019

Judge

Gadenya, J

The court found that while the applicant's counsel was negligent in prioritizing a lower court matter over High Court proceedings and the applicant delayed unreasonably in seeking to set aside the ex parte order, the matter involved land rights protected under Article 26 of the Constitution. The court emphasized the importance of hearing both parties in land disputes and determined that, in the interests of justice and given the constitutional protection of property rights, the ex parte order should be set aside. However, the applicant was ordered to pay the taxed costs of the application and…

Source excerpt

• Ex Parte Orders
• Setting Aside Judgments
• Right To Be Heard
• Land Disputes

Kizza & 1 Ors v Uganda Land Commission & Ors (Miscillenous Application No. 1237 of 2013)

Kizza & 1 Ors v Uganda Land Commission & Ors (Miscillenous Application No. 1237 of 2013) [2014] UGHCLD 44 (5 November 2014)

Court

HC: Land Division (Uganda)

Case number

Miscillenous Application No. 1237 of 2013

The court found that the consent judgment was vitiated by a fundamental mistake and misapprehension of facts regarding the identity of the parties, specifically the confusion between the applicants (Abalema United Effort CBO) and the 2nd respondent (Abalema Disabled United Effort (U) Ltd). The 1st respondent acted under the mistaken belief that it was dealing with the applicants when in fact it was dealing with the 2nd respondent. This misapprehension, coupled with allegations of fraud and forgery, and the fact that the consent judgment was entered into contrary to a prior court order requiri…

Source excerpt

• Consent Judgment Review
• Mistake And Fraud
• Party Identity Dispute
• Setting Aside Judgments

Multiple ICD Limited v J and M Airport Road Hotel/Apartments & Leisure Centre Ltd

Multiple ICD Limited v J and M Airport Road Hotel/Apartments & Leisure Centre Ltd (Civil Appeal No. 145 2012) [2014] UGCA 137 (10 September 2014)

Court

Court of Appeal of Uganda

Case number

Civil Appeal No. 145 2012

Judge

Kavuma, JA, Nshimye, JA, Kasule, JA

The Court of Appeal upheld dismissal of an application to set aside a consent judgment, finding no sufficient ground such as fraud, mistake, or ignorance of material facts.

• Consent Judgments
• Setting Aside Judgments
• Procedural Irregularities
• Appeals Process
• Consent-judgments
• Setting-aside-judgments

Attorney General and Another v Kamoga and Another

Attorney General and Another v Kamoga and Another (Civil Appeal No. 8 of 2004) [2008] UGSC 39 (6 March 2008)

Court

Supreme Court of Uganda

Case number

Civil Appeal No. 8 of 2004

Judge

Odoki, CJ, J.W.N.Tsekooko, JSC, Mulenga, JSC, Kanyeihamba, JSC, Katureebe ,JSC

The Supreme Court held that the High Court judge had jurisdiction to entertain the application for review of the consent judgment entered by the registrar, as the registrar's powers do not include review jurisdiction. The application for review was based on discovery of new and important matter, which under Order 46 could be heard by any judge, not necessarily the one who entered the decree. However, the Court found that the appellants' ignorance of the pleaded fraud in the second amended written statement of defence did not amount to ignorance of a material fact sufficient to vitiate the con…

Source excerpt

• Review Of Consent Judgment
• Powers Of Registrar
• Aggrieved Party Definition
• Setting Aside Judgments
• Pleading Fraud
• Appellate Jurisdiction

Attorney General and Uganda Land Commission v James Mark Kamoga and Another

Attorney General and Uganda Land Commission v James Mark Kamoga and Another (Civil Appeal No. 8 of 2004) [2008] UGSC 34 (6 March 2008)

Court

Supreme Court of Uganda

Case number

Civil Appeal No. 8 of 2004

Judge

Odoki, CJ, Mulenga, JSC, J.W.N.Tsekooko, JSC, Kanyeihamba, JSC, Katureebe, JSC

The Supreme Court held that the High Court judge had jurisdiction to entertain an application for review of a consent judgment entered by a registrar, as review jurisdiction is not delegated to registrars and is vested in judges under Order 46 of the Civil Procedure Rules. However, the Court found that the appellants failed to establish sufficient grounds to warrant interference with the consent judgment. Ignorance of the pleaded fraud in the amended defence by the appellants' counsel did not amount to ignorance of material facts, as the substance of the fraud allegation was present in earlie…

Source excerpt

• Review Of Consent Judgment
• Powers Of Registrar
• Setting Aside Judgments
• Aggrieved Party Definition
• Fraud In Pleadings