The High Court in Lira has dismissed an application seeking to review a consent order made in a representative suit concerning compensation for property lost during insurgency.
The ruling, delivered by Justice Okello on January 17, 2025, rejected the applicants’ claims of conflict of interest and procedural flaws.
The applicants, who are beneficiaries of the compensation decree, argued that the consent order, executed in favor of a group of public officials, was unfair. They claimed that these officials had a conflict of interest and should not have been included as plaintiffs, as their actions allegedly prejudiced over 44,000 other beneficiaries.
The applicants sought the order to be reviewed, citing the omission of the Attorney General, a necessary party to the agreement.
Justice Okello ruled that the application was procedurally defective due to the absence of the Attorney General, a necessary party in the consent order, which violated the right to a fair hearing under Article 28(1) of the Constitution.
The court also found that the applicants failed to meet the legal criteria for a review under Section 82 of the Civil Procedure Act and Order 46 Rule 1(1) CPR. These criteria include the discovery of new evidence, error on the face of the record, or proof of fraud, none of which were established in the application.
In its ruling, the court emphasized the binding nature of consent orders, describing them as contractual agreements that cannot be easily undone. It also noted that the applicants had not shown how the inclusion of the public officials as plaintiffs deprived them of their rights under the decree.
The application was ultimately dismissed, with the court ordering each party to bear its own costs. This ruling reaffirms the principle that consent orders, once agreed upon, are not easily subject to review without strong evidence to justify such a move.
Before the January 17, 2025 court ruling in Akello & Others v Egole & 7 Others (Miscellaneous Application 105 of 2024), the case was about a group of 44,000 beneficiaries who wanted compensation for property lost during insurgency. The applicants, led by Betty Akello, were challenging a decision that allowed some public officials, including the Lira Resident City Commissioner Egole, to be added as plaintiffs in the case.
The applicants argued that the inclusion of these public officials as plaintiffs was unfair because it could harm the interests of other beneficiaries. They also said the Attorney General, a key official in the process, had been left out of the decision, making the process unfair.
The applicants wanted the court to cancel the decision (consent order) that allowed the public officials to join the case. However, the court ruled that the application had problems because the Attorney General had not been included, which went against the Constitution’s requirement for a fair hearing.
The court found that the applicants didn’t have enough reason to change the decision, and they didn’t prove there was any new evidence, mistake, or fraud in the case. The court also said that decisions made with consent are binding, like contracts, and can’t be easily undone.
Comments are closed.