[2025] UGCommC 43

[2025] UGCommC 43

The court found that the applicants failed to prove any ground warranting the setting aside of the consent judgment. There was no evidence of misrepresentation by the respondent, as any alleged misadvice came from the applicants' own counsel and not the respondent. The applicants' mistaken belief about the debt was...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2025] UGCommC 43
Parties
Applicant: Musinguzi Yusuf; Applicant: Richard Kariisa; Respondent: Feher Ahamed Yahya
Court
Commercial Court of Uganda
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Judgment Date
4 March 2025
Case Number
Miscellaneous Application 10 of 2025
Procedural Posture
Miscellaneous Application / Ruling on Application to Set Aside Consent Judgment
Outcome
application dismissed
Judges
Stephen Mubiru, J
Legal Topics
Consent Judgment, Setting Aside Judgment, Limitation Periods, Contractual Mistake, Misrepresentation, Loan Disputes
Source Language
english
Civil Procedure Commercial and Corporate Consent Judgment Setting Aside Judgment Limitation Periods Contractual Mistake Misrepresentation Loan Disputes

Source-derived case record

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 5 Authorities cited 30 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 10
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Musinguzi Yusuf

Applicant

Richard Kariisa

Applicant

Feher Ahamed Yahya

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Miscellaneous Application / Ruling on Application to Set Aside Consent Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the consent judgment should be set aside on grounds of misrepresentation, mistake, or limitation.
  2. 2 Whether the suit was time barred under the Limitation Act.
  3. 3 Whether the applicants were misled or mistaken as to the terms or quantum of the debt in the consent judgment.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the applicants failed to prove any ground warranting the setting aside of the consent judgment. There was no evidence of misrepresentation by the respondent, as any alleged misadvice came from the applicants' own counsel and not the respondent. The applicants' mistaken belief about the debt was not shown to be known or exploited by the respondent, and any mistake was based on personal opinion rather than a palpable, factual error. Regarding limitation, the court held that part payments made by the applicants, particularly the payment on 2nd December, 2020, restarted the limitation period under section 22(4) of The Limitation Act, making the suit timely. The court...

Court Disposition

application dismissed

Orders

  • The application to set aside the consent judgment is dismissed.
  • The consent judgment is upheld and maintained.