Wakilii

Uganda Blankets Manufacturers 1973 Limited v Attorney General (Civil Appeal 24 of 1998)

Court of Appeal · [1999] UGCA 31 · 1999 Appeal Dismissed ✦ AI-generated summary ↓ Download
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Civil appeal from a ruling of the High Court dismissing an application for an order of mandamus to compel payment of interest on costs
Decision
Appeal dismissed with costs to the respondent; no interest on costs payable

The full judgment

Read the complete, verbatim text of this judgment.

Sign in to read the full judgment

AI-generated summary. This summary was generated by AI from the full text of the judgment. It may contain errors or omissions — always read the source judgment before relying on it.

Holding

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, holding that interest on costs is granted at the discretion of the court under section 27(2) of the Civil Procedure Act and must be specifically pleaded and ordered. Since no order for interest on costs had been made and the appellant had not prayed for it, no interest was payable. The court rejected reliance on English Crown Proceedings Act provisions as irrelevant given section 19 of the Government Proceedings Act made the Civil Procedure Act applicable. It also held that a valid demand for payment against Government must be backed by a certificate of taxation under section 20(1) of the Government Proceedings Act; the mandamus application was not such a demand.

Facts

The appellant was the successful party in Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 15 of 1992 against the Attorney General, obtaining general damages, an order of accounts, a declaration of entitlement to exclusive possession of its premises, costs of the appeal and suit, and interest on the decretal amount. The appellant's bill of costs was drawn up and taxed at Ug.Shs. 31,515,300 and a certificate of taxation issued. The Government later paid the taxed costs. However, the Government refused to pay the appellant's claim of Ug.Shs. 15,007,320 said to be interest on the costs. The appellant applied to the High Court for an order of mandamus directing the Treasury Officer of Accounts to pay that interest. The High Court dismissed the application, finding no order for interest on costs had been made and that no proper demand backed by a certificate of taxation had been served. The appellant appealed.

Issues

  1. Whether interest is payable on the costs of a suit where no order for interest on costs was made and no such prayer was pleaded.
  2. Whether the application for an order of mandamus amounted to a valid demand on the Treasury Officer of Accounts for payment of interest on costs.

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed.
  • Costs of the appeal awarded to the respondent.

Key headnotes

Costs — Interest on Costs — Requirement of Court Order and Pleading
Interest on costs is granted at the discretion of the court under section 27(2) of the Civil Procedure Act; costs do not carry interest unless there is a specific order for interest on costs, and the party must plead for such interest.
Government Proceedings — Applicable Law — Civil Procedure Act over English Crown Proceedings Act
By virtue of section 19 of the Government Proceedings Act, the law applicable to claims for interest on costs against the Government is section 27(2) of the Civil Procedure Act, and references to the English Crown Proceedings Act 1947 are irrelevant.
Mandamus — Payment by Government — Requirement of Certificate of Taxation
A demand for payment ordered by court against the Government must be backed by a certificate in the prescribed form issued under section 20(1) of the Government Proceedings Act; an application for an order of mandamus does not constitute such a demand.

Legislation cited (5)

  • Government Proceedings Act (Cap. 69) s.3(b)
  • Government Proceedings Act s.19
  • Government Proceedings Act s.20(1)
  • Civil Procedure Act s.27(2)
  • Crown Proceedings Act 1947 s.24(2)

Cases cited (1)

  • Shadi Ram Mohindra v B.C. Mohindra [1957] EA 108
Source: this page presents Wakilii’s issue analysis and metadata for a publicly reported Ugandan judgment. Any AI-generated summary is marked as such. Judgment text is sourced from the Uganda Legal Information Institute (ulii.org). Wakilii is not affiliated with ULII.