Gordon Sentiba and 2 Others vs Inspector of Government (Civil Appeal No 14 of 2007) [2008] UGCA 4 (27 March 2008)

{\rtf1\ansi\ansicpg1252\uc1\deff0\stshfdbch0\stshfloch0\stshfhich0\stshfbi0\deflang1033\deflangfe1033{\fonttbl{\f0\froman\fcharset0\fprq2{\*\panose 02020603050405020304}Times New Roman;} {\f36\froman\fcharset0\fprq2{\*\panose 02050604050505020204}Bookman Old Style;}{\f198\froman\fcharset238\fprq2 Times New Roman CE;}{\f199\froman\fcharset204\fprq2 Times New Roman Cyr;}{\f201\froman\fcharset161\fprq2 Times New Roman Greek;} {\f202\froman\fcharset162\fprq2 Times New Roman Tur;}{\f203\froman\fcharset177\fprq2 Times New Roman (Hebrew);}{\f204\froman\fcharset178\fprq2 Times New Roman (Arabic);}{\f205\froman\fcharset186\fprq2 Times New Roman Baltic;} {\f206\froman\fcharset163\fprq2 Times New Roman (Vietnamese);}{\f558\froman\fcharset238\fprq2 Bookman Old Style CE;}{\f559\froman\fcharset204\fprq2 Bookman Old Style Cyr;}{\f561\froman\fcharset161\fprq2 Bookman Old Style Greek;} {\f562\froman\fcharset162\fprq2 Bookman Old Style Tur;}{\f565\froman\fcharset186\fprq2 Bookman Old Style Baltic;}}{\colortbl;\red0\green0\blue0;\red0\green0\blue255;\red0\green255\blue255;\red0\green255\blue0;\red255\green0\blue255;\red255\green0\blue0; \red255\green255\blue0;\red255\green255\blue255;\red0\green0\blue128;\red0\green128\blue128;\red0\green128\blue0;\red128\green0\blue128;\red128\green0\blue0;\red128\green128\blue0;\red128\green128\blue128;\red192\green192\blue192;}{\stylesheet{ \ql \li0\ri0\widctlpar\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0 \fs20\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp2057\langfenp1033 \snext0 \styrsid10761543 Normal;}{\*\cs10 \additive \ssemihidden Default Paragraph Font;}{\* \ts11\tsrowd\trftsWidthB3\trpaddl108\trpaddr108\trpaddfl3\trpaddft3\trpaddfb3\trpaddfr3\trcbpat1\trcfpat1\tscellwidthfts0\tsvertalt\tsbrdrt\tsbrdrl\tsbrdrb\tsbrdrr\tsbrdrdgl\tsbrdrdgr\tsbrdrh\tsbrdrv \ql \li0\ri0\widctlpar\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0 \fs20\lang1024\langfe1024\cgrid\langnp1024\langfenp1024 \snext11 \ssemihidden Normal Table;}{\s15\ql \li0\ri0\widctlpar \tqc\tx4153\tqr\tx8306\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0 \fs20\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp2057\langfenp1033 \sbasedon0 \snext15 \styrsid10761543 footer;}{\*\cs16 \additive \sbasedon10 \styrsid10761543 page number;}{ \s17\qj \li0\ri0\sb120\widctlpar\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0 \f36\fs28\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp2057\langfenp1033 \sbasedon0 \snext17 \styrsid10761543 Body Text;}{ \s18\qj \li709\ri1508\sb120\widctlpar\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin1508\lin709\itap0 \b\f36\fs28\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp2057\langfenp1033 \sbasedon0 \snext18 \styrsid10761543 Block Text;}{ \s19\qj \li2160\ri0\sb120\widctlpar\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin2160\itap0 \b\i\f36\fs28\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp2057\langfenp1033 \sbasedon0 \snext19 \styrsid10761543 Body Text Indent;}{ \s20\qj \li1440\ri0\sb120\widctlpar\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin1440\itap0 \b\f36\fs28\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp2057\langfenp1033 \sbasedon0 \snext20 \styrsid10761543 Body Text Indent 2;}{ \s21\qj \li0\ri941\widctlpar\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin941\lin0\itap0 \f36\fs28\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp2057\langfenp1033 \sbasedon0 \snext21 \styrsid10761543 Body Text 2;}{\*\cs22 \additive \sbasedon10 \styrsid10761543 line number;}} {\*\latentstyles\lsdstimax156\lsdlockeddef0}{\*\listtable{\list\listtemplateid1263184474\listsimple{\listlevel\levelnfc4\levelnfcn4\leveljc0\leveljcn0\levelfollow0\levelstartat1\levelspace0\levelindent0{\leveltext\'03(\'00);}{\levelnumbers\'02;}\fbias0 \fi-720\li2880\jclisttab\tx2880\lin2880 }{\listname ;}\listid381255238}{\list\listtemplateid134807567\listsimple{\listlevel\levelnfc0\levelnfcn0\leveljc0\leveljcn0\levelfollow0\levelstartat1\levelspace0\levelindent0{\leveltext\'02\'00.;}{\levelnumbers \'01;}\fbias0 \fi-360\li360\jclisttab\tx360\lin360 }{\listname ;}\listid606499405}{\list\listtemplateid-197219684\listsimple{\listlevel\levelnfc4\levelnfcn4\leveljc0\leveljcn0\levelfollow0\levelstartat1\levelspace0\levelindent0{\leveltext \'03(\'00);}{\levelnumbers\'02;}\fbias0 \fi-435\li1155\jclisttab\tx1155\lin1155 }{\listname ;}\listid987055738}{\list\listtemplateid1934551258\listsimple{\listlevel\levelnfc0\levelnfcn0\leveljc0\leveljcn0\levelfollow0\levelstartat1\levelspace0 \levelindent0{\leveltext\'02\'00);}{\levelnumbers\'01;}\fbias0 \fi-390\li1110\jclisttab\tx1110\lin1110 }{\listname ;}\listid1020669385}{\list\listtemplateid-805919446\listsimple{\listlevel\levelnfc4\levelnfcn4\leveljc0\leveljcn0\levelfollow0\levelstartat1 \levelspace0\levelindent0{\leveltext\'03(\'00);}{\levelnumbers\'02;}\fbias0 \fi-495\li1935\jclisttab\tx1935\lin1935 }{\listname ;}\listid1031489072}{\list\listtemplateid-21083046\listsimple{\listlevel\levelnfc0\levelnfcn0\leveljc0\leveljcn0\levelfollow0 \levelstartat1\levelspace0\levelindent0{\leveltext\'02\'00.;}{\levelnumbers\'01;}\fbias0 \fi-420\li1140\jclisttab\tx1140\lin1140 }{\listname ;}\listid1800419531}}{\*\listoverridetable{\listoverride\listid606499405\listoverridecount0\ls1} {\listoverride\listid1020669385\listoverridecount0\ls2}{\listoverride\listid987055738\listoverridecount0\ls3}{\listoverride\listid1800419531\listoverridecount0\ls4}{\listoverride\listid1031489072\listoverridecount0\ls5}{\listoverride\listid381255238 \listoverridecount0\ls6}}{\*\rsidtbl \rsid85610\rsid2432848\rsid4160446\rsid7935604\rsid8869984\rsid10496762\rsid10761543\rsid13591258}{\*\generator Microsoft Word 11.0.5604;}{\info{\title THE REPUBLIC OF UGANDA}{\author wkibabu} {\operator Wor. Jessica chemeri}{\creatim\yr2008\mo8\dy12\hr15\min38}{\revtim\yr2008\mo8\dy12\hr15\min38}{\version2}{\edmins23}{\nofpages11}{\nofwords3332}{\nofchars18996}{\*\company Court of Appeal}{\nofcharsws22284}{\vern24689}} \paperw11906\paperh16838\margl1797\margr1797 \widowctrl\ftnbj\aenddoc\noxlattoyen\expshrtn\noultrlspc\dntblnsbdb\nospaceforul\formshade\horzdoc\dgmargin\dghspace120\dgvspace180\dghorigin1797\dgvorigin1440\dghshow2\dgvshow2 \jexpand\viewkind1\viewscale100\pgbrdrhead\pgbrdrfoot\splytwnine\ftnlytwnine\htmautsp\nolnhtadjtbl\useltbaln\alntblind\lytcalctblwd\lyttblrtgr\lnbrkrule\nobrkwrptbl\snaptogridincell\allowfieldendsel\wrppunct \asianbrkrule\rsidroot10761543\newtblstyruls\nogrowautofit \fet0{\*\ftnsep \pard\plain \ql \li0\ri0\widctlpar\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0 \fs20\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp2057\langfenp1033 {\insrsid4160446 \chftnsep \par }}{\*\ftnsepc \pard\plain \ql \li0\ri0\widctlpar\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0 \fs20\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp2057\langfenp1033 {\insrsid4160446 \chftnsepc \par }}{\*\aftnsep \pard\plain \ql \li0\ri0\widctlpar\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0 \fs20\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp2057\langfenp1033 {\insrsid4160446 \chftnsep \par }}{\*\aftnsepc \pard\plain \ql \li0\ri0\widctlpar\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0 \fs20\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp2057\langfenp1033 {\insrsid4160446 \chftnsepc \par }}\sectd \psz9\linemod5\linex0\endnhere\sectdefaultcl\sftnbj {\footer \pard\plain \s15\ql \li0\ri0\widctlpar\tqc\tx4153\tqr\tx8306\pvpara\phmrg\posxc\posy0\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0 \fs20\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp2057\langfenp1033 {\field{\*\fldinst {\cs16\insrsid4160446 PAGE }}{\fldrslt {\cs16\lang1024\langfe1024\noproof\insrsid2432848 1}}}{\cs16\insrsid4160446 \par }\pard \s15\ql \li0\ri0\widctlpar\tqc\tx4153\tqr\tx8306\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0 {\insrsid4160446 \par }}{\*\pnseclvl1\pnucrm\pnstart1\pnindent720\pnhang {\pntxta .}}{\*\pnseclvl2\pnucltr\pnstart1\pnindent720\pnhang {\pntxta .}}{\*\pnseclvl3\pndec\pnstart1\pnindent720\pnhang {\pntxta .}}{\*\pnseclvl4\pnlcltr\pnstart1\pnindent720\pnhang {\pntxta )}} {\*\pnseclvl5\pndec\pnstart1\pnindent720\pnhang {\pntxtb (}{\pntxta )}}{\*\pnseclvl6\pnlcltr\pnstart1\pnindent720\pnhang {\pntxtb (}{\pntxta )}}{\*\pnseclvl7\pnlcrm\pnstart1\pnindent720\pnhang {\pntxtb (}{\pntxta )}}{\*\pnseclvl8 \pnlcltr\pnstart1\pnindent720\pnhang {\pntxtb (}{\pntxta )}}{\*\pnseclvl9\pnlcrm\pnstart1\pnindent720\pnhang {\pntxtb (}{\pntxta )}}\pard\plain \qc \li0\ri0\sb120\sa120\widctlpar\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid10761543 \fs20\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp2057\langfenp1033 {\b\fs24\insrsid10761543\charrsid7935604 THE REPUBLIC OF UGANDA \par IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF UGANDA, AT KAMPALA. \par }\pard \ql \li0\ri0\widctlpar\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid10761543 {\b\fs24\insrsid10761543\charrsid7935604 CORAM: \par \tab HON. JUSTICE G. M. OKELLO, JA. \par \tab HON. JUSTICE A. E. N. MPAGI-BAHIGEINE, JA. \par \tab HON. JUSTICE C. N. B. KITUMBA, JA. \par }\pard \qc \li0\ri0\sb120\sa120\widctlpar\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid10761543 {\b\fs24\insrsid10761543\charrsid7935604 CIVIL APPEAL NO. 14 OF 2007. \par {\pntext\pard\plain\b\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid10761543\charrsid7935604 \hich\af0\dbch\af0\loch\f0 1.\tab}}\pard \ql \fi-360\li360\ri0\widctlpar\jclisttab\tx360{\*\pn \pnlvlbody\ilvl0\ls1\pnrnot0\pndec\pnstart1\pnindent360\pnsp120\pnhang {\pntxta .}}\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\ls1\adjustright\rin0\lin360\itap0\pararsid10761543 {\b\fs24\insrsid10761543\charrsid7935604 GORDON SENTIBA \par {\pntext\pard\plain\b\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid10761543\charrsid7935604 \hich\af0\dbch\af0\loch\f0 2.\tab}}\pard \ql \fi-357\li357\ri0\widctlpar\jclisttab\tx360{\*\pn \pnlvlbody\ilvl0\ls1\pnrnot0\pndec\pnstart1\pnindent360\pnsp120\pnhang {\pntxta .}}\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\ls1\adjustright\rin0\lin357\itap0\pararsid10761543 {\b\fs24\insrsid10761543\charrsid7935604 AMBASS}{\b\fs24\insrsid13591258\charrsid7935604 A}{\b\fs24\insrsid10761543\charrsid7935604 D}{ \b\fs24\insrsid13591258\charrsid7935604 O}{\b\fs24\insrsid10761543\charrsid7935604 R PAUL ORONO ETIANG:::::APPELLANTS. \par {\pntext\pard\plain\b\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid10761543\charrsid7935604 \hich\af0\dbch\af0\loch\f0 3.\tab}}\pard \ql \fi-357\li357\ri0\widctlpar\jclisttab\tx360{\*\pn \pnlvlbody\ilvl0\ls1\pnrnot0\pndec\pnstart1\pnindent360\pnsp120\pnhang {\pntxta .}}\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\ls1\adjustright\rin0\lin357\itap0\pararsid10761543 {\b\fs24\insrsid10761543\charrsid7935604 ENGIN}{\b\fs24\insrsid13591258\charrsid7935604 E}{\b\fs24\insrsid10761543\charrsid7935604 ER ZIKUSOOKA \par }\pard \qc \li0\ri0\sb120\sa120\widctlpar\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid10761543 {\b\fs24\insrsid10761543\charrsid7935604 VERSUS. \par }\pard \ql \li0\ri0\sb120\sa120\widctlpar\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid10761543 {\b\fs24\insrsid10761543\charrsid7935604 INSPECTORATE OF GOVERNMENT:::::::::::RESPONDENT.}{\fs24\insrsid10761543\charrsid7935604 \par }\pard \qj \li1134\ri1502\widctlpar\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin1502\lin1134\itap0\pararsid10761543 {\b\i\fs24\insrsid10761543\charrsid7935604 [Appeal from the ruling and order of THE High Court of Uganda at Kampala (Kasu}{ \b\i\fs24\insrsid13591258\charrsid7935604 l}{\b\i\fs24\insrsid10761543\charrsid7935604 e, J. dated 16}{\b\i\fs24\super\insrsid10761543\charrsid7935604 th}{\b\i\fs24\insrsid10761543\charrsid7935604 March 2007 in Miscellaneous Application No. 65 of 2007 arising from HCCS No. 431 of 2007]. \par }\pard \ql \li0\ri0\widctlpar\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid10761543 {\fs24\insrsid10761543\charrsid7935604 \par }{\b\fs24\ul\insrsid10761543\charrsid7935604 JUDGMENT OF KITUMBA JA. \par }{\fs24\insrsid10761543\charrsid7935604 \par }\pard \qj \li0\ri0\sb120\sl360\slmult1\widctlpar\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid10761543 {\fs24\insrsid10761543\charrsid7935604 This is an appeal from the ruling of Kasule J. whereby he dismissed the preliminary objection that was raised by the appellants in Miscellaneous Application No. 65 of 2007. \par }\pard\plain \s17\qj \li0\ri0\sb120\sl360\slmult1\widctlpar\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid10761543 \f36\fs28\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp2057\langfenp1033 {\f0\fs24\insrsid10761543\charrsid7935604 The facts of the appeal as agreed upon by both parties during scheduling conference are as follows; - \par }\pard \s17\qj \li0\ri0\sb120\widctlpar\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid10761543 {\f0\fs24\insrsid10761543\charrsid7935604 \par }\pard\plain \qj \li709\ri941\sb120\widctlpar\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin941\lin709\itap0\pararsid10761543 \fs20\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp2057\langfenp1033 {\fs24\insrsid10761543\charrsid7935604 \tab }{ \i\fs24\insrsid10761543\charrsid7935604 \'93Appellants were former Shareholders of Nyanza Textile Ltd and owned 1% of the shares. The Appellant sued in the representative capacity for all the shareholders for compensation arising from the divestiture of Nytil. The suit was against Attorney General and culminated into a consent judgment of 2}{\i\fs24\super\insrsid10761543\charrsid7935604 nd}{\i\fs24\insrsid10761543\charrsid7935604 January 2007. \par On 15}{\i\fs24\super\insrsid10761543\charrsid7935604 th}{\i\fs24\insrsid10761543\charrsid7935604 January 2007, the Appellants obtained Garnishee Nisi against Stanbic Bank to attach the money from the Divesture Account. \par Before the order could be made absolute, the respondent applied to High Court seeking review or set aside the consent judgment that had been entered between the Appellant and Attorney General. \par At the hearing of Miscellaneous Application No. 65 of 2007, the Appellants raised preliminary objections to the effect that the application was statute barred and the respondent had no locus standi to lodge an application on behalf of Government. The Attorney General also raised objections on affidavits supportin g the application. \par The Presiding Judge on 16}{\i\fs24\super\insrsid10761543\charrsid7935604 th}{\i\fs24\insrsid10761543\charrsid7935604 March 2007 overruled the objections. The Appellants applied for and obtained leave to appeal against the ruling. Hence this appeal on four grounds namely; - \par {\pntext\pard\plain\b\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid10761543\charrsid7935604 \hich\af0\dbch\af0\loch\f0 1)\tab}}\pard \qj \fi-390\li1110\ri1508\sb120\widctlpar\jclisttab\tx1110{\*\pn \pnlvlbody\ilvl0\ls2\pnrnot0 \pndec\pnstart1\pnindent360\pnsp120\pnhang {\pntxta )}}\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\ls2\adjustright\rin1508\lin1110\itap0\pararsid10761543 {\b\fs24\insrsid10761543\charrsid7935604 The learned trial Judge erred in law when he held tha t Section 19(1) (a) of the Inspectorate of Government Act No. 5 of 2002 does not bar the Inspectorate of Government from filing an application in the High Court to review and/or set aside a decision(s) of the said court to which the Inspectorate was not a party, resulting in the wrong decision not to strike out the application for being statute barred. \par {\pntext\pard\plain\b\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid10761543\charrsid7935604 \hich\af0\dbch\af0\loch\f0 2)\tab}}\pard \qj \fi-390\li1110\ri1508\sb120\widctlpar\jclisttab\tx1110{\*\pn \pnlvlbody\ilvl0\ls2\pnrnot0 \pndec\pnstart1\pnindent360\pnsp120\pnhang {\pntxta )}}\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\ls2\adjustright\rin1508\lin1110\itap0\pararsid10761543 {\b\fs24\insrsid10761543\charrsid7935604 The learned trial Judge erred in law when he failed to find that that S. 19(1) (c) barred the Inspectorate of Government from investigating any civil matter that had been commenced in a court of law prior to the beginning of the Inspectorate of Government \rquote s investigations resulting in the wrong decision not to strike out the application for being statute barred. \par }\pard \qj \li720\ri1508\sb120\widctlpar{\*\pn \pnlvlcont\ilvl0\ls0\pnrnot0\pndec }\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin1508\lin720\itap0\pararsid10761543 {\b\fs24\insrsid10761543\charrsid7935604 \par {\pntext\pard\plain\b\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid10761543\charrsid7935604 \hich\af0\dbch\af0\loch\f0 3)\tab}}\pard \qj \fi-390\li1110\ri1508\sb120\widctlpar\jclisttab\tx1110{\*\pn \pnlvlbody\ilvl0\ls2\pnrnot0 \pndec\pnstart1\pnindent360\pnsp120\pnhang {\pntxta )}}\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\ls2\adjustright\rin1508\lin1110\itap0\pararsid10761543 {\b\fs24\insrsid10761543\charrsid7935604 The learned trial judge erred in law when he fa iled to find that the right to represent the Government of Uganda in civil matters before a court of law was the exclusive constitutional and legal preserve of the office of the Attorney General resulting in the wrong decision notto strike out the applica tion on the basis of lack of locus standi. \par {\pntext\pard\plain\b\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid10761543\charrsid7935604 \hich\af0\dbch\af0\loch\f0 4)\tab}}\pard \qj \fi-390\li1110\ri1508\sb120\widctlpar\jclisttab\tx1110{\*\pn \pnlvlbody\ilvl0\ls2\pnrnot0 \pndec\pnstart1\pnindent360\pnsp120\pnhang {\pntxta )}}\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\ls2\adjustright\rin1508\lin1110\itap0\pararsid10761543 {\b\fs24\insrsid10761543\charrsid7935604 The learned Judge erred in law when he failed to find that the Respondent \rquote s application was incompetent by reason of the fact that it was supported by defective affidavits.}{\fs24\insrsid10761543\charrsid7935604 \par }\pard \qj \li0\ri1508\sb120\widctlpar\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin1508\lin0\itap0\pararsid10761543 {\fs24\insrsid10761543\charrsid7935604 \par }\pard \qj \li0\ri0\sb120\sl360\slmult1\widctlpar\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid10761543 {\fs24\insrsid10761543\charrsid7935604 The appellants prayed court that; - \par {\pntext\pard\plain\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid10761543\charrsid7935604 \hich\af0\dbch\af0\loch\f0 (a)\tab}}\pard \qj \fi-435\li1155\ri0\sb120\sl360\slmult1\widctlpar\jclisttab\tx1155{\*\pn \pnlvlbody\ilvl0\ls3\pnrnot0 \pnlcltr\pnstart1\pnindent360\pnsp120\pnhang {\pntxtb (}{\pntxta )}}\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\ls3\adjustright\rin0\lin1155\itap0\pararsid10761543 {\fs24\insrsid10761543\charrsid7935604 The Ruling and order of the High Court be set aside and \par {\pntext\pard\plain\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid10761543\charrsid7935604 \hich\af0\dbch\af0\loch\f0 (b)\tab}}\pard \qj \fi-435\li1155\ri0\sb120\sl360\slmult1\widctlpar\jclisttab\tx1155{\*\pn \pnlvlbody\ilvl0\ls3\pnrnot0 \pnlcltr\pnstart1\pnindent360\pnsp120\pnhang {\pntxtb (}{\pntxta )}}\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\ls3\adjustright\rin0\lin1155\itap0\pararsid10761543 {\fs24\insrsid10761543\charrsid7935604 That Miscellaneous Application No. 65 of 2007 be dismissed for being incompetent with costs in this Court and in the High Court. \par }\pard\plain \s17\qj \li0\ri0\sb120\sl360\slmult1\widctlpar\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid10761543 \f36\fs28\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp2057\langfenp1033 {\f0\fs24\insrsid10761543\charrsid7935604 During the hearing of the appeal, the appellants were represented by Mr. Er bert Byenkya and Mr. Oscar Kihiika, while Mr. Vincent Kasujja and Mr. Hosea Lwanga appeared for the respondent. Counsel for both parties agreed on the following issues for determination, namely: - \par \par {\pntext\pard\plain\b\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid10761543\charrsid7935604 \hich\af0\dbch\af0\loch\f0 1.\tab}}\pard\plain \qj \fi-420\li1140\ri1508\sb120\widctlpar\jclisttab\tx1140{\*\pn \pnlvlbody\ilvl0\ls4\pnrnot0 \pndec\pnstart1\pnindent360\pnsp120\pnhang {\pntxta .}}\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\ls4\adjustright\rin1508\lin1140\itap0\pararsid10761543 \fs20\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp2057\langfenp1033 {\b\i\fs24\insrsid10761543\charrsid7935604 Whether the respondent \rquote s application to set aside the consent judgment was statute barred = Grounds 1 and 2. \par {\pntext\pard\plain\b\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid10761543\charrsid7935604 \hich\af0\dbch\af0\loch\f0 2.\tab}}\pard \qj \fi-420\li1140\ri1508\sb120\widctlpar\jclisttab\tx1140{\*\pn \pnlvlbody\ilvl0\ls4\pnrnot0 \pndec\pnstart1\pnindent360\pnsp120\pnhang {\pntxta .}}\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\ls4\adjustright\rin1508\lin1140\itap0\pararsid10761543 {\b\i\fs24\insrsid10761543\charrsid7935604 Whether the respondent had locus standi to file an Application = Ground 3.

\par {\pntext\pard\plain\b\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid10761543\charrsid7935604 \hich\af0\dbch\af0\loch\f0 3.\tab}}\pard \qj \fi-420\li1140\ri1508\sb120\widctlpar\jclisttab\tx1140{\*\pn \pnlvlbody\ilvl0\ls4\pnrnot0 \pndec\pnstart1\pnindent360\pnsp120\pnhang {\pntxta .}}\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\ls4\adjustright\rin1508\lin1140\itap0\pararsid10761543 {\b\i\fs24\insrsid10761543\charrsid7935604 Whether the Application could be sustained based on defective affidavits = Ground 4.}{\fs24\insrsid10761543\charrsid7935604 \par }\pard \qj \li0\ri0\sb120\sl360\slmult1\widctlpar\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid10761543 {\fs24\insrsid10761543\charrsid7935604 They argued the grounds of appeal according t o those issues. I will also handle them in the same order. \par }\pard\plain \s17\qj \li0\ri0\sb120\sl360\slmult1\widctlpar\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid10761543 \f36\fs28\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp2057\langfenp1033 {\f0\fs24\insrsid10761543\charrsid7935604 Regarding issue No.1, Mr. Byenkya relied on section 19 (1) (a) and (c) of the Inspectorate of Government Act 2002, which state: \par }\pard\plain \s18\qj \li709\ri1508\sb120\widctlpar\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin1508\lin709\itap0\pararsid10761543 \b\f36\fs28\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp2057\langfenp1033 {\f0\fs24\insrsid10761543\charrsid7935604 \tab \'93 19. Limitation on Investigations by Inspectorate. \par \par \tab (1) The Inspectorate shall not have power to question or review any of the following matters - \par {\pntext\pard\plain\b\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid10761543\charrsid7935604 \hich\af0\dbch\af0\loch\f0 (a)\tab}}\pard\plain \qj \li720\ri1508\sb120\widctlpar\jclisttab\tx1946{\*\pn \pnlvlbody\ilvl0\ls5\pnrnot0 \pnlcltr\pnstart1\pnindent360\pnsp120\pnhang {\pntxtb (}{\pntxta )}}\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\ls5\adjustright\rin1508\lin720\itap0\pararsid10761543 \fs20\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp2057\langfenp1033 {\b\i\fs24\insrsid10761543\charrsid7935604 the decisions of any court of law or of any judicial officer in the exercise of his or her judicial functions; \par {\pntext\pard\plain\b\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid10761543\charrsid7935604 \hich\af0\dbch\af0\loch\f0 (b)\tab}}\pard \qj \li709\ri1508\sb120\widctlpar\jclisttab\tx1935{\*\pn \pnlvlbody\ilvl0\ls5\pnrnot0 \pnlcltr\pnstart1\pnindent360\pnsp120\pnhang {\pntxtb (}{\pntxta )}}\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\ls5\adjustright\rin1508\lin709\itap0\pararsid10761543 {\b\i\fs24\insrsid10761543\charrsid7935604 \'85\'85\'85\'85.. \par {\pntext\pard\plain\b\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid10761543\charrsid7935604 \hich\af0\dbch\af0\loch\f0 (c)\tab}}\pard \qj \li709\ri1508\sb120\widctlpar\jclisttab\tx1935{\*\pn \pnlvlbody\ilvl0\ls5\pnrnot0 \pnlcltr\pnstart1\pnindent360\pnsp120\pnhang {\pntxtb (}{\pntxta )}}\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\ls5\adjustright\rin1508\lin709\itap0\pararsid10761543 {\b\i\fs24\insrsid10761543\charrsid7935604 any civil matter which is before court at the commenceme nt of the Inspectorate\rquote s investigations;}{\fs24\insrsid10761543\charrsid7935604 \par }\pard \qj \li0\ri1508\sb120\widctlpar\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin1508\lin0\itap0\pararsid10761543 {\fs24\insrsid10761543\charrsid7935604 \par }\pard \qj \li0\ri0\sb120\sl360\slmult1\widctlpar\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid10761543 {\fs24\insrsid10761543\charrsid7935604 Mr. Byenkya contended that contrary to section 19 (1) (c) of the Inspectorate of Government Act, the respondent purported to investigate or seek to investigate the matter in the High Court that had not only been co mmenced in court but had been concluded. Counsel argued that the plaint had been filed in court on 13/7/2006. The Attorney General had filed a written statement of defence on 17/8/2006. The consent judgment was entered on 21/1/2007. The complaint was not r aised with the respondent until 29/1/2007, which was a couple of weeks after judgment had been entered. Counsel contended that section 19(1) (c) of the Act barred the Inspectorate from investigating any matter that is before court at the commencement of s uch investigation. \par }\pard \qj \li0\ri0\sb120\widctlpar\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid10761543 {\fs24\insrsid10761543\charrsid7935604 \par }\pard\plain \s17\qj \li0\ri0\sb120\sl360\slmult1\widctlpar\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid10761543 \f36\fs28\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp2057\langfenp1033 {\f0\fs24\insrsid10761543\charrsid7935604 Mr. Byenkya further argued that Article 225 of the Constitution sets out the functions of the IGG. However, according to article 232 of the Constitution, it is Parliament which is empowered to make laws to give effect to the provisions o f the Constitution that relate to the Inspectorate of Government. Counsel contended that what the respondent was seeking to do was manifestly illegal. He argued that section 19(1) (c) of the Inspectorate of Government Act was intended to safeguard the ind ependence of the judiciary. According to counsel, in his ruling the learned trial judge did not consider their submissions on this point. He, therefore, prayed this Court to consider it. \par }\pard \s17\qj \li0\ri0\sb120\widctlpar\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid10761543 {\f0\fs24\insrsid10761543\charrsid7935604 \par }\pard \s17\qj \li0\ri0\sb120\sl360\slmult1\widctlpar\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid10761543 {\f0\fs24\insrsid10761543\charrsid7935604 Turning to section 19(1) (a) of the Inspectorate of Government Act, c ounsel complained that the respondent was contravening that sub-section. In counsel\rquote s view, the respondent was questioning the consent judgment between the Attorney General and the appellants. The respondent was also questioning the representative order an d the garnish order, which had been issued by the Registrar. In that way the respondent was inquiring into and analysing the judgment and orders of the court, which in his view, amounted to a review. \par In conclusion, counsel submitted that according to S. 19(1) (a) and ( c ) of the Inspector General of Government Act, the respondent was statute barred from bringing the application for review before the High Court. \par Mr. Vincent Kasujja, learned counsel for the respondent, disagreed. He contended that the appl ication was not statute barred. The respondent was mindful of the provisions of section 19(1) (a) and ( c) of the Inspectorate of Government Act and that is the reason why she filed the application for review in court. He submitted that the Inspector Gen e ral of Government was dissatisfied with the consent judgement which the Minister of Finance had raised a complaint about. The Attorney General had failed to take any remedial measures to the complaint of the Minister of Finance. Counsel further argued t h at in the opinion of the Inspector General of Government, the consent judgement was likely to cause financial loss to government and to affect the interests of the other shareholders who had been left out. He argued that the application for review was in tended to highlight the irregularities of the consent order between the appellants and the Attorney General. In counsel\rquote s view, the irregularities amounted to abuse of office. Pursuant to articles 225, 226, 227 and 230 (2) of the Constitution and sections 9 and 10 of the Inspectorate of Government Act, the IGG was mandated to deal with those irregularities by filing the application in issue. \par }\pard \s17\qj \li0\ri0\sb120\widctlpar\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid10761543 {\f0\fs24\insrsid10761543\charrsid7935604 \par }\pard \s17\qj \li0\ri0\sb120\sl360\slmult1\widctlpar\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid10761543 {\f0\fs24\insrsid10761543\charrsid7935604 Counsel supported the learned trial judge\rquote s holding that it was not the respondent who was reviewing or setting aside the consent judgement. The respondent had only filed the application seeking the court to review or set aside its own decision after considering the merits of the application. Counsel prayed court to dismiss grounds 1 and 2. \par }\pard \s17\qj \li0\ri0\sb120\widctlpar\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid10761543 {\f0\fs24\insrsid10761543\charrsid7935604 \par }\pard \s17\qj \li0\ri0\sb120\sl360\slmult1\widctlpar\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid10761543 {\f0\fs24\insrsid10761543\charrsid7935604 I have carefully consi dered the submissions of counsel for both parties and perused the record. Issue No. 1 which comprises grounds 1 and 2 of appeal was canvassed during the trial. The submissions of both counsel during trial and on appeal are similar. I do not accept the

argument by counsel for the appellants that the learned trial judge did not consider the provisions of section 19 (1) (a) of the Inspectorate Act. When considering the provisions of S. 19 (1) (a) and (c) of the Act the learned trial judge stated thus in h is judgement at page 147-151 of the record of appeal: \par }\pard \s17\qj \li0\ri0\sb120\widctlpar\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid10761543 {\f0\fs24\insrsid10761543\charrsid7935604 \par }\pard \s17\qj \li1440\ri0\sb120\widctlpar\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin1440\itap0\pararsid10761543 {\f0\fs24\insrsid10761543\charrsid7935604 \'93}{\b\f0\fs24\insrsid10761543\charrsid7935604 The first ground is that Section 19(1) (a) and (c) of the Inspectorate of Government Act expressly bars the applicant from questioning or reviewing a decision of any Court of law or any civil matter wh ich is before Court at the commencement of the inspectorate investigations. For the Court to allow the applicant to question or review the consent judgement. Gamishee Order and Representative Order, all relating to H. C. C. S. No. 431 of 2006, is to condone a nullity. The Court ought not to do that. \par }\pard\plain \qj \li0\ri0\sb120\widctlpar\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid10761543 \fs20\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp2057\langfenp1033 {\b\fs24\insrsid10761543\charrsid7935604 \tab \tab \'85\'85\'85\'85\'85\'85\'85\'85\'85 \'85\'85\'85\'85\'85\'85\'85\'85\'85\'85\'85\'85\'85\'85\'85 \par \tab \tab \'85\'85\'85\'85\'85\'85\'85\'85\'85\'85\'85\'85\'85\'85\'85\'85\'85\'85\'85\'85\'85\'85\'85\'85 \par \tab \tab \'85\'85\'85\'85\'85\'85\'85\'85\'85\'85\'85\'85\'85\'85\'85\'85\'85\'85\'85\'85\'85\'85\'85\'85 \par \tab \tab \'85\'85\'85\'85\'85\'85\'85\'85\'85\'85\'85\'85\'85\'85\'85\'85\'85\'85\'85\'85\'85\'85\'85\'85 \par \tab \tab \'85\'85\'85\'85\'85\'85\'85\'85\'85\'85\'85\'85\'85\'85\'85\'85\'85\'85\'85\'85\'85\'85\'85\'85 \par \tab \tab \'85\'85\'85\'85\'85\'85\'85\'85\'85\'85\'85\'85\'85\'85\'85\'85\'85\'85\'85\'85\'85\'85\'85\'85 \par }\pard \qj \li1440\ri0\sb120\widctlpar\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin1440\itap0\pararsid10761543 {\b\fs24\insrsid10761543\charrsid7935604 As to the first ground section 19(1) (a) and (c) o f the Inspectorate of Government Act 5/02 provides that \endash \par }\pard\plain \s19\qj \li2160\ri0\sb120\widctlpar\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin2160\itap0\pararsid10761543 \b\i\f36\fs28\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp2057\langfenp1033 {\f0\fs24\insrsid10761543\charrsid7935604 \lquote 19 (1) The Ispectorate shall not have power to question or review any of the following matters \endash \par {\pntext\pard\plain\b\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid10761543\charrsid7935604 \hich\af0\dbch\af0\loch\f0 (a)\tab}}\pard\plain \qj \fi-720\li2880\ri0\sb120\widctlpar\jclisttab\tx2880{\*\pn \pnlvlbody\ilvl0\ls6\pnrnot0 \pnlcltr\pnstart1\pnindent360\pnsp120\pnhang {\pntxtb (}{\pntxta )}}\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\ls6\adjustright\rin0\lin2880\itap0\pararsid10761543 \fs20\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp2057\langfenp1033 {\b\i\fs24\insrsid10761543\charrsid7935604 the decision of any Court of law or any judicial officer in the exercise of his or her judicial functions \par {\pntext\pard\plain\b\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid10761543\charrsid7935604 \hich\af0\dbch\af0\loch\f0 (b)\tab}}\pard \qj \fi-720\li2880\ri0\sb120\widctlpar\jclisttab\tx2880{\*\pn \pnlvlbody\ilvl0\ls6\pnrnot0 \pnlcltr\pnstart1\pnindent360\pnsp120\pnhang {\pntxtb (}{\pntxta )}}\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\ls6\adjustright\rin0\lin2880\itap0\pararsid10761543 {\b\i\fs24\insrsid10761543\charrsid7935604 any civil matter which is before Court at the commencement of the Inspectorate\rquote s investigations.\rquote \par }\pard\plain \s20\qj \li1440\ri0\sb120\widctlpar\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin1440\itap0\pararsid10761543 \b\f36\fs28\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp2057\langfenp1033 {\f0\fs24\insrsid10761543\charrsid7935604 The intent of the above provisions is to preserve the independence of the judiciary and to ensure that the operations of the Inspectorate are not above, but are subject to the jurisdiction of the Courts of Judicature. \par }\pard\plain \qj \li1440\ri0\sb120\widctlpar\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin1440\itap0\pararsid10761543 \fs20\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp2057\langfenp1033 {\b\fs24\insrsid10761543\charrsid7935604 \par It is, however, in the considered view of Court to misinterpret those provisions, if they are taken to mean that the Inspectorate, in appropriate cases barred by law from moving Court for the Court itself, and not the Inspectorate, to question by way of review a court decision. It has to be appreciated that in such a case, it is not the Inspectorate questioning or reviewing the decision of Court. It is the Court itself reviewing its dec ision. The Inspectorate just adduces evidence to Court and the Court decides, on the basis of the evidence adduced and the law, whether to review its decision or not. \par \par Would for example, the Inspectorate be barred by Section 19(1) (a) and ( c ) to move Cou rt to review by setting aside or otherwise, a consent judgement in a running down involving a Government owned Motor-vehicle executed and filed in Court, benefiting a Plaintiff who from the facts the Inspectorate obtains, subsequent to the execution and f iling of a consent judgement, was never a victim of the traffic accident but a cheat? \par \par Court is of the considered view, that the Inspectorate would not be barred by law from moving Court for the Court to review such a consent judgement on the grounds of fraud and corruption. \par \par This is the more so because the law is now settled that the Inspector-General of Government has capacity to sue or to be sued. See Constitutional Court Constitution Application No. 13 of 2006. }{\b\i\fs24\insrsid10761543\charrsid7935604 Inspector General of Government Vs Kikonda Butema Farm Ltd. and Attorney General, when the Court held:-}{\b\fs24\insrsid10761543\charrsid7935604 \par \'93We think that there are legal provisions in the Constitution that set up the Inspectorate of Government and the Act that operationalised those provisions that indicate to us that the applicant has capacity to sue and to be sued.\'94 \par \par The considered view of court is that when the Applicant moves Court to review the consent judgement or any Court decision, it is not the applicant carrying out the review of questioning, but rather the Court itself. The Court depending on the evidence and the law before it may refuse or allow to review such a decision. The applicant can only be said to question or to review a Court decision if, on her own, without resorting to Court, she interferes with giving effec t to that Court decision. This is not what the applicant has done in this case. Accordingly there is no illegality being condoned.\'94 \par \par }\pard\plain \s17\qj \li0\ri0\sb120\sl360\slmult1\widctlpar\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid10761543 \f36\fs28\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp2057\langfenp1033 {\f0\fs24\insrsid10761543\charrsid7935604 The learned judge overruled the objection based on Section 19 (1) (a) and ( c ) of the Inspectorate of Government Act. I am unable to fault the learned trial judge on his reasoning and the conclusion he reached. Grounds 1 and 2 must fail. \par }\pard\plain \qj \li0\ri0\sb120\widctlpar\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid10761543 \fs20\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp2057\langfenp1033 {\fs24\insrsid10761543\charrsid7935604 \par }\pard\plain \s17\qj \li0\ri0\sb120\sl360\slmult1\widctlpar\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid10761543 \f36\fs28\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp2057\langfenp1033 {\f0\fs24\insrsid10761543\charrsid7935604 I now turn to ground 3 which is }{\b\f0\fs24\insrsid10761543\charrsid7935604 \'93Whether the respondent had locus standi to file an application.\'94 \par }\pard\plain \qj \li0\ri0\sb120\widctlpar\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid10761543 \fs20\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp2057\langfenp1033 {\fs24\insrsid10761543\charrsid7935604 \par }\pard \qj \li0\ri0\sb120\sl360\slmult1\widctlpar\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid10761543 {\fs24\insrsid10761543\charrsid7935604 Counsel for the appellant contended th at the respondent had no locus standi to file the application. He submitted that the dispute in court was between private citizens and the Government of Uganda. He argued that according to section 10 of the }{\b\fs24\insrsid10761543\charrsid7935604 Government Proceedings Act (Cap. 77)}{\fs24\insrsid10761543\charrsid7935604 it is only the Attorney General who can file defences in cases against the Government. He submitted that this is rooted in article 250 of the Constitution. He contended that while the respondent had powers to prevent corruption and abuse of office the current dis pute was not of that kind. Appellant\rquote s counsel argued that the powers of the respondent as provided by article 225(1)(a) of the Constitution are restricted only to administrative actions of Public Officers and authorities. \par }\pard \qj \li0\ri0\sb120\widctlpar\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid10761543 {\fs24\insrsid10761543\charrsid7935604 \par }\pard \qj \li0\ri0\sb120\sl360\slmult1\widctlpar\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid10761543 {\fs24\insrsid10761543\charrsid7935604 Counsel for the respondent did not agree. He supported the learned trial judge\rquote s holding that the respondent had the locus standi to bring the application. Counsel contended that according to section 82 of the Civil Procedure Act (Cap. 71) and Order 46 Rule 1 of the Civil Procedure Rule s the respondent was an aggrieved party who had the right to file the application for review. In support of his submission counsel relied on }{\b\fs24\insrsid10761543\charrsid7935604 Ladak Abudallah Muhamed Hussein Vs Griffiths Isingoma Kakiiza & 2 Others SCCA No. 8 of 1995, Muhamed Allibhai Vs Bukenya Musoke & Departed Asian Property Custodian Board SCCA No. 56/96.}{\fs24\insrsid10761543\charrsid7935604 \par }\pard \qj \li0\ri0\sb120\widctlpar\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid10761543 {\fs24\insrsid10761543\charrsid7935604 \par }\pard \qj \li0\ri0\sb120\sl360\slmult1\widctlpar\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid10761543 {\fs24\insrsid10761543\charrsid7935604 Counsel submitted further that from the contents of the Attorney General\rquote s letter dated 15} {\fs24\super\insrsid10761543\charrsid7935604 th}{\fs24\insrsid10761543\charrsid7935604 February 2007, it was evident that the Attorney General was contented with the consent jud gement. The respondent is an independent body which does not have to be controlled by the Attorney General. In counsel\rquote s view, the respondent was right to file the application. In support of his submission he relied on }{ \b\fs24\insrsid10761543\charrsid7935604 Inspectorate of Government V Kikon da Butema Farm Ltd and Attorney General, Constitutional Application No. 13 of 2006 and Kabagambe Asol & 2 Others vs Electoral Commission and Dr. Kizza Besigye, Constitutional Petition No. 1 of 2006.}{\fs24\insrsid10761543\charrsid7935604 Counsel prayed court to dismiss ground 3. \par The law is now settled that the respondent is an independent body created by the 1995 Constitution with the capacity to sue and to be sued. See: }{\b\fs24\insrsid10761543\charrsid7935604 Inspector General of Government vs Kikonda Butema Farm Ltd and Attorney General}{\fs24\insrsid10761543\charrsid7935604 }{\b\fs24\insrsid10761543\charrsid7935604 (supra).}{\fs24\insrsid10761543\charrsid7935604 The complaint raised in ground 3 is t hat the respondent has no locus standi, to apply for review of a judgement that is between private citizens and the government. I appreciate the submissions by counsel for the respondent that according to Order 46 Rule 1 and 2 and section 82 of the Civil P rocedure Act, any aggrieved party may move court to review a judgment. That may be done by an aggrieved party who may not necessarily be a party to the proceedings. The arguments by the respondents counsel concerning the constitutional and statutory dutie s of the respondent as provided in the Constitution and the Inspectorate of Government Act are well taken. In his ruling the learned trial judge while interpreting the legal provisions, which allow court to set aside the consent judgment stated thus at pag e 150-157 of the record of appeal; - \par }\pard\plain \s21\qj \li284\ri941\widctlpar\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin941\lin284\itap0\pararsid10761543 \f36\fs28\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp2057\langfenp1033 {\f0\fs24\insrsid10761543\charrsid7935604 \par \tab }{\b\f0\fs24\insrsid10761543\charrsid7935604 \'93 The applicant has moved Court first Under Order 9 Rule 12 which empowers Court to set aside a judgment entered by the Registrar under order 50 of the Rules. It is also made under Order 46 Rules 1 and 2 Section 82, which provide for Review. \par }\pard\plain \qj \li284\ri941\widctlpar\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin941\lin284\itap0\pararsid10761543 \fs20\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp2057\langfenp1033 {\b\fs24\insrsid10761543\charrsid7935604 In }{ \b\fs24\ul\insrsid10761543\charrsid7935604 Ladac Abdullah Mohamed Hussein versus Griffiths Isongoma Kakiiza & 2 others}{\b\fs24\insrsid10761543\charrsid7935604 , the Supreme Court, Odoki J. S. C. as he then was, held with regard to Order 9 Rule 9, now Rule 12, that; -}{\fs24\insrsid10761543\charrsid7935604 \par }\pard \qj \li0\ri941\widctlpar\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin941\lin0\itap0\pararsid10761543 {\fs24\insrsid10761543\charrsid7935604 \par }\pard \qj \li567\ri-52\widctlpar\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin-52\lin567\itap0\pararsid10761543 {\i\fs24\insrsid10761543\charrsid7935604 \lquote Order 9 Rule 9 is therefore not restricted to setting aside ex-parte judgments, but covers consent Judgment entered by the registrar. It gives the Court unfettered discretion to set aside or vary such judgments upon such a term as may be just. See }{\b\i\fs24\ul\insrsid10761543\charrsid7935604 Mbogo vs Shah}{\i\fs24\insrsid10761543\charrsid7935604 (1969) EA 93. Nor is it restricted to parties to the suit but includes any person who has a direct interest in the matter, who has been injuriously affected: See }{ \b\i\fs24\ul\insrsid10761543\charrsid7935604 Jacques vs Harrison (1883-4) 12 AC 165, Employers Liability Assurance Corporation Ltd vs Sedgwich Collins and Company Ltd (1927) AC 95. The Supreme Court practice, 1988, P. 129.}{ \i\fs24\insrsid10761543\charrsid7935604 \rquote \par \par }\pard \qj \li284\ri941\widctlpar\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin941\lin284\itap0\pararsid10761543 {\b\fs24\insrsid10761543\charrsid7935604 The applicant has asserted that the first Respondents are not representative of all those non-Government Shareholders entitled to compensation; and that Government is likely to suffer loss if those left out re- surface later on and the Government in future. To the applicant this would amount to corruption as one constitutionally mandated to eliminate corruption in public offices, applicant prays Court to be heard on merit as to the appropriateness of the consent Judgment whether it is tainted with corruption, abuse of power or not. \par The Court, in the exercise of its discretion holds that the applicant has put forward sufficient averments for her to have shown locus in the matter: namely to prevent corruption and po ssible future loss to Government. It is a constitutional and statutory duty she has to perform. She should therefore be heard on merit\'94.}{\fs24\insrsid10761543\charrsid7935604 sic \par }\pard \qj \li0\ri0\sb120\widctlpar\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid10761543 {\fs24\insrsid10761543\charrsid7935604 \par }\pard \qj \li0\ri0\sb120\sl360\slmult1\widctlpar\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid10761543 {\fs24\insrsid10761543\charrsid7935604 The judge also observed that the application before him was peculiar in that the respondent was questioning the co nduct of officers of the Attorney General Chambers/Ministry of Justice. According to him, it was impracticable for the respondent to rely upon their advice. The respondent could not trust the representation by the same people who were the subject of the c omplaint. I agree with the finding of the learned trial judge. \par Ground 3, therefore, fails. \par I now turn to issue 3 i.e. ground 4. \par The complaint by the appellant\rquote s counsel is that the application could not be sustained because it was based on defective affidav its. Counsel contended that the main affidavit of Hon Justice Faith Mwondha, did not show in the jurat where it was sworn. The affidavit of Dr. Suruma was drawn by the Ministry of Finance and Economic Development and not the Attorney General. \par Mr. Kasujja d isagree. He submitted that the argument about the defective affidavits had been raised by the Attorney General at the trial. However, the Attorney General had only filed a notice of appeal and failed to pursue the appeal any further. Counsel argued that t he omission to state in the jurat the place at which the affidavit was sworn was a mere clerical error and failure to state who drafted it was not fatal. Regarding the affidavit of Dr. Suruma, counsel contended that the argument by the appellant\rquote s counsel t hat it was not drafted by the Attorney General and was, therefore, defective is not tenable. The argument that the Attorney General did not consent to its drafting is not valid either. According to counsel section 66 (2) of the Advocates Act provides that the restrictions regarding unqualified persons preparing documents does not apply to public officers. \par Counsel for the appellants has correctly stated that section 6 of the Oaths Act, requires the Commissioner for Oaths to state in the jurat at what place a nd date when the affidavit is taken or sworn. There is no place stated in the jurat in the affidavit of Lady Justice Mwondha of the 14}{\fs24\super\insrsid10761543\charrsid7935604 th}{\fs24\insrsid10761543\charrsid7935604 February 2007. The learned trial judge did not find that to be a fatal defect because there were sufficient particulars in the affidavit itself to show that it was drafted at Kampala. The judge observed that there is no penalty provided for non compliance with section 6 of the Oaths Act. \par I agree with the learned judge\rquote s observations and finding. Additionally, I am of the c onsidered view that failure to state in the jurat the place at which, the affidavit was sworn, can be ascertained from the body of the affidavit is a mere technicality. Such a failure must not deter court from administering substantive justice as provided by Article 126(2) (e) of the Constitution. \par Regarding the affidavit of Dr. Suruma, the fact that it was drawn by the Ministry of Finance does not make it incompetent. I accept the argument by counsel for the respondent that section 66(1)(a) of the Advocates Act does not apply to Public officers. I would observe further that the Attorney General who was bent on supporting the consent judgment in issue could not have given permission for the drafting of the affidavits. Similarly, the Attorney General could no t have drafted that affidavit. In my opinion Application No. 65 of 2007 was the effort of the respondent to try to have the consent judgment reviewed. I find that the objection on the affidavits lacks merit. Ground 4 also fails. \par In the result I would dismiss the appeal with costs to the respondent here and in the trial court. \par }\pard \qc \li0\ri0\sb120\sl360\slmult1\widctlpar\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid10761543 {\fs24\insrsid10761543\charrsid7935604 Dated this 28}{\fs24\super\insrsid10761543\charrsid7935604 th}{ \fs24\insrsid10761543\charrsid7935604 day of March 2008. \par }\pard \qj \li0\ri0\sb120\sl360\slmult1\widctlpar\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid10761543 {\fs24\insrsid10761543\charrsid7935604 \par }\pard \qc \li0\ri0\widctlpar\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid10761543 {\i\fs24\insrsid10761543\charrsid7935604 C. N. B. Kitumba \par }{\b\fs24\ul\insrsid10761543\charrsid7935604 JUSTICE OF APPEAL. \par }\pard \ql \li0\ri0\widctlpar\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0 {\fs24\insrsid85610\charrsid7935604 \par }{\fs24\insrsid4160446\charrsid7935604 \par \par \par \par }{\b\fs24\ul\insrsid4160446\charrsid7935604 JUDGMENT OF GM. OKELLO \par }{\fs24\insrsid4160446\charrsid7935604 I have had the opportunity to read the draft judgment of Kitumba JA. I entirely agree with her reasoning, the conclusion reached and the order she proposed. I have nothing useful to add. \par As Mpagi-Bahigeine,JA also agrees, that appeal shall stand dismissed with the order proposed by Kitumba, JA \par \par Dated at Kampala this 28}{\fs24\super\insrsid4160446\charrsid7935604 th}{\fs24\insrsid4160446\charrsid7935604 day of March 2008 \par \par }{\b\fs24\insrsid4160446\charrsid7935604 GM. OKello \par Justice of Appeal}{\b\fs24\insrsid4160446 \par }{\b\fs24\insrsid2432848 \par \par }{\b\fs24\ul\insrsid2432848\charrsid2432848 JUDGMENT OF AEN MPAGI-BAHIGEINE}{\b\fs24\ul\insrsid2432848 \par \par }{\fs24\insrsid2432848 I have read in draft the judgment of Kitumba JA. I entirely agree that this appeal is devoid of merit and should be dismissed with orders proposed therein. \par \par Dated at Kampala this 28}{\fs24\super\insrsid2432848\charrsid2432848 th}{\fs24\insrsid2432848 day of March 2008 \par \par }{\b\fs24\insrsid2432848\charrsid2432848 Hon AEN Mpagi-Bahigeine \par Justice of Appeal \par }{\fs24\insrsid2432848\charrsid2432848 \par }{\fs24\insrsid4160446\charrsid7935604 \par }}