High Court reaffirms that a consent judgment becomes binding once signed by the parties and endorsed by the court

Waboga David
4 days ago
3 min read

High Court upholds consent judgment and emphasizes the threshold for setting aside consent decrees

Case brief for Nalubega Ruth v Cairo Bank (U) Limited (Miscellaneous Application No. 1142 of 2024) [2025] UGCommC 118 (5 June 2025)

Ruling Date: 5th June 2025

Before: Hon. Dr. Ginamia Melody Ngwatu, Ag. Judge

Legal Representation

Applicant: M/s Nexus Solicitors & Advocates
Respondent: M/s KSMO Advocates

Overview

The High Court has dismissed an application seeking to set aside a consent judgment entered on 3rd November 2022 between a borrower (applicant) and her lender (respondent bank), citing lack of sufficient legal grounds.

The applicant had alleged misrepresentation by her counsel and disputed the loan balance of UGX 501,698,006 recorded in the consent.

Key Issue: Whether sufficient grounds had been raised to set aside a consent judgment

Background

In this matter, the applicant sought to set aside a consent judgment entered on 3rd November 2022 in favour of the respondent bank. The applicant claimed she was misled by her former counsel into signing the consent judgment and disputed the stated outstanding loan amount of UGX 501,698,006. She also raised preliminary objections relating to the respondent’s affidavit in reply.

Key Preliminary Objections

Hearsay and Competence of Affidavit
The applicant contended that the Legal Manager of the respondent lacked personal knowledge of the facts and failed to disclose the source of her information. The court, however, found that as Legal Manager, the deponent was well-positioned to speak on behalf of the respondent and that her belief-based statements were permissible under Order 19 Rule 3(1) of the Civil Procedure Rules.
Lack of Authorisation to Swear Affidavit
It was argued that the deponent had not presented any authority to depose on behalf of the respondent. Relying on Electro-Maxx Uganda Ltd v Oryx Oil Uganda Ltd and Jacqueline Rugasira v Andrew Rugasira, the court held that no separate proof of authority was required where the deponent is a recognized agent—here, the Legal Manager.

Court’s Determination on Setting Aside Consent Judgment

The court reaffirmed the legal principles on consent judgments:

A consent judgment becomes binding once signed by the parties and endorsed by the court (Brooke Bond Liebeg (T) Ltd v Mallya).
It may only be set aside on limited grounds such as fraud, collusion, or ignorance of material facts (Peter Mulira v Mitchell Cots Ltd; Attorney General v James Mark Kamoga & Others).

The applicant failed to prove:

Any fraud or misrepresentation by her former counsel;
That she did not participate in the process, she appeared before the Registrar and signed the judgment in the presence of her lawyer;
Any protest or objection made to the consent judgment for over 18 months after signing.

Moreover, her affidavit exhibited incomplete documentation, and her reliance on a letter from Cairo Bank indicating a reduced outstanding balance merely showed partial payment, not proof of fraud or mistake.

Court’s Holding

The court held that the applicant had not met the high threshold required to vitiate a consent judgment. The application was dismissed with costs.

“This application has a number of loose ends and does not demonstrate any fraud or misrepresentation that would warrant the setting aside of this application.”

Implication

Consent judgments carry the weight of finality and may only be set aside on exceptional grounds.

Find the full decision