Sometime later the Applicants filed Misc. Application No. 904 of 2015 seeking court to set aside
the Consent Judgment. It also asked the court to set aside the consequential order that had
resulted from the consent judgment. The ground was that the consent had been entered into by
the 4th Respondent on behalf of the 1st Applicant without authority, instructions or resolutions.
Furthermore, that the Consent Judgment encompassed legal issues in Civil Suit 467 of 2013 and
included other persons who were not parties. More so that there was collusion and connivance
between the 4th Respondent and the 1st, 2nd and 3rd Respondents.
The court found that the 4th Respondent and the 1st Applicant participated in the negotiations that
led to the Consent Judgment. It also found that a resolution was passed appointing the 4th
Respondent and empowering him to handle the liabilities of the 1st Applicant. The resolution
empowered him to deal with the 1st Applicant’s shares and assets namely to “sell, execute
documents and perform all things.” It is against these findings that the Applicants seek leave to
appeal against.
When the Application for leave to appeal came up for hearing on the 21st February 2018 Mr
Idoot for the Respondents sought leave to cross examine the 3rd Applicant Joseph Magezi
because his affidavit contradicted his past activities in the matter.
Court granted this Application based on the findings in the Ruling of Misc. Application No. 904
of 2015. In that Application the court found that the 1st Applicant’s advocate was party to the
negotiations that led to the consent relying on the resolutions that had appointed the 4 th
Respondent and empowered him to deal with the properties of the 1st and 2nd Applicants in as far
as their liabilities were concerned.
5