[2009] UGHC 60

[2009] UGHC 60

The court held that the applicant is bound by the terms of the consent judgment entered on 11th September 2008. Allowing the proposed amendment to the written statement of defence, which seeks to deny liability and challenge the respondents' cause of action, would be contrary to the terms of the consent judgment and...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2009] UGHC 60
Parties
Applicant: Attorney General; Respondent: Adyera Nobert & Ors
Court
High Court of Uganda
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Judgment Date
6 April 2009
Case Number
HCT
Procedural Posture
Miscellaneous Application / Ruling on Application to Amend Written Statement of Defence
Outcome
application dismissed with costs to the respondents
Legal Topics
Amendment of Pleadings, Consent Judgment, Settlement Enforcement
Source Language
english
Civil Procedure Amendment of Pleadings Consent Judgment Settlement Enforcement

Source-derived case record

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Downloadable case file Legal principles 2 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Attorney General

Applicant

Adyera Nobert & Ors

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Miscellaneous Application / Ruling on Application to Amend Written Statement of Defence

  1. 1 Whether the applicant should be granted leave to amend the written statement of defence after a consent judgment has been entered.
  2. 2 Whether the proposed amendment would be contrary to the terms of the consent judgment.
  3. 3 Whether allowing the amendment would cause injustice or unfair prejudice to the respondents.

Ratio Decidendi

The court held that the applicant is bound by the terms of the consent judgment entered on 11th September 2008. Allowing the proposed amendment to the written statement of defence, which seeks to deny liability and challenge the respondents' cause of action, would be contrary to the terms of the consent judgment and would cause injustice and unfair prejudice to the respondents, who are entitled to rely on the settlement for execution. The application to amend the defence was therefore dismissed as lacking merit.

Court Disposition

application dismissed with costs to the respondents

Orders

  • The application to amend the written statement of defence is dismissed.
  • Costs awarded to the respondents.