Wakilii

Lubwama v Attorney General (Civil Appeal No. 114 of 2018)

Court of Appeal · [2022] UGCA 282 · 2022 Appeal Allowed ✦ AI-generated summary ↓ Download
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
First appeal from a High Court decision dismissing a civil suit for compensation
Decision
Appeal allowed; Government ordered to pay the balance of Ug. Shs. 131,320,000/= with interest and costs

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 held that the appellant's suit was not time-barred because his cause of action arose in 2012 when Government retracted its earlier promise to pay full compensation, not in 1990 when his bus was destroyed. Applying the doctrine of legitimate expectation, the Court found Government had made a clear, unambiguous representation to pay Ug. Shs. 211,320,000/= and could not resile from it without giving adequate, proportionate reasons. As Government offered no justification supported by evidence for reducing the payment to Ug. Shs. 80,000,000/=, the appellant retained a legitimate expectation to the full sum. The appeal was allowed and Government ordered to pay the balance with interest.

Facts

In 1990, the appellant owned a commercial passenger bus operating on the Kampala-Gulu Highway. On 3 May 1990 the bus was attacked and damaged by rebels occupying parts of Gulu District. The appellant requested compensation from Government in March 1991. After several engagements, Cabinet, following a Presidential directive, identified the appellant among persons whose property was destroyed by rebels and earmarked him to receive Ug. Shs. 211,320,000/=. Between November 2006 and March 2009, Government paid the appellant instalments totaling Ug. Shs. 80,000,000/=. In a letter dated 8 May 2012, the Solicitor General communicated that the Ug. Shs. 80,000,000/= was full and final settlement following a verification exercise, and no further payment would be made. The appellant disputed this and sued for the balance of Ug. Shs. 131,320,000/= with interest and damages. No evidence was adduced to prove that any revision or verification exercise reducing the entitlement had actually occurred.

Issues

  1. Whether the appellant's suit in the lower court was time-barred.
  2. Whether the appellant was entitled to be paid the balance of Ug. Shs. 131,320,000/=.
  3. What are the appropriate remedies in the circumstances.

Orders

  • Appeal allowed.
  • Judgment and orders of the trial Judge set aside.
  • Declaration that the appellant had a legitimate expectation entitling him to payment of a total sum of Ug. Shs. 211,320,000/= as compensation.
  • Government ordered to pay the balance of Ug. Shs. 131,320,000/=.
  • The sum to attract interest at court rate from the date of the trial court judgment on 14 November 2017 till payment in full.
  • Costs of the appeal and in the lower court awarded to the appellant.

Key headnotes

Limitation — Accrual of Cause of Action — Government Retraction of Promise to Pay Compensation
Where a claim is founded on Government's unlawful retraction of an earlier promise to pay compensation, the cause of action accrues at the date the retraction is communicated, not at the date of the underlying event giving rise to the original entitlement.
Legitimate Expectation — Substantive Expectation — Clear and Unambiguous Government Promise
Where a clear, unambiguous and unqualified promise is given by a public authority to an identifiable person, the court will require it to be honoured unless the authority shows good and proportionate reasons to resile from it.
Legitimate Expectation — Irrelevance of Consideration or Ex Gratia Character
The doctrine of legitimate expectation applies irrespective of whether the promise was backed by consideration or made as a favour; its application turns on whether it would be unfair to allow Government to retract its earlier position.
Legitimate Expectation — Burden to Justify Resiling — Absence of Reasons
A public authority that seeks to frustrate a substantive legitimate expectation must adduce evidence of adequate and proportionate reasons; bare assertions in correspondence unsupported by evidence do not justify resiling from the promise.

Legislation cited (3)

  • Limitation Act Cap. 80 s.3
  • Civil Procedure and Limitation (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act Cap. 72 s.2
  • Judicature (Court of Appeal Rules) Directions S.I 13-10 r.30(1)(a)

Cases cited (6)

  • Kalungi and 61 Others v Attorney General and Another (Civil Suit No. 63 of 2008)
  • Schmidt vs. Secretary for Home Affairs [1969] ALLER 904
  • Council for Service Unions vs. Minister for Civil Service [1984] 3 ALLER 935
  • United Policyholders Group v Attorney General of Trinidad and Tobago [2016] UKPC 17
  • R vs. North and East Devon Health Authority ex parte Coughlan [2000] 3 ALLER 850
  • Kifamunte Henry v Uganda (Criminal Appeal No. 10 of 1997)
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.