Wakilii

Attorney General v Goodman Agencies Ltd (Constitutional Appeal 5 of 2010)

Supreme Court · [2015] UGSC 2 · 2015 Cross-Appeal Partly Allowed ✦ AI-generated summary ↓ Download
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Cross-appeal by the Attorney-General to the Supreme Court from a decision of the Constitutional Court awarding interest on a consent-judgment decretal sum, the substantive constitutional appeal having been struck out.
Decision
Cross-appeal partly allowed; interest on the decretal sum reduced from 24% to 6% per annum from the date of the consent judgment until payment in full.

The full judgment

Read the complete, verbatim text of this judgment.

Sign in to read the full judgment
Cited — treatment unverified cited in 3 (treatment unverified) Derived from citing cases in the Wakilii corpus — not an assertion that this case is good law.

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 Supreme Court (majority) held that the Constitutional Court properly exercised its discretion in awarding interest: a decretal sum under a consent judgment is a debt, and by s.18 of the Government Proceedings Act read with s.26 of the Civil Procedure Act the Government, like a private person, may be ordered to pay interest on a money decree. However, because satisfaction would draw on public funds, 24% per annum was excessive; the interest was reduced to the reasonable court rate of 6% per annum, running from the date of the consent judgment until payment in full. The cross-appeal therefore succeeded in part. Kisaakye JSC dissented, holding that no interest should be awarded as it impermissibly altered the consent judgment.

Facts

Goodman Agencies Ltd and others were bailees of ten trucks seized by Uganda Government security agencies in 1996. They sued the Attorney-General in High Court Civil Suit No. 719 of 1997 to recover the value of the trucks and lost earnings. In September 2005 the parties entered a consent judgment under which the Attorney-General agreed to pay UGX 14,485,543,842 (covering replacement value, loss of earnings and costs); the consent judgment made no provision for interest. After it was sealed, Hassa Agencies (K) Ltd, which had earlier been struck out, applied to be added as a judgment creditor and the High Court granted this. Goodman Agencies petitioned the Constitutional Court challenging that inclusion; the Constitutional Court expunged the proceedings adding Hassa Agencies and awarded interest at 24% per annum on the decretal sum from the date of the consent judgment. The Attorney-General cross-appealed the interest award; the related appeal by Hassa Agencies had been struck out for failure to deposit security for costs.

Issues

  1. Whether the respondent was entitled to any interest on the decretal amount under the consent judgment.
  2. If interest was payable, what rate was applicable, particularly where the decree is satisfied from public funds.

Orders

  • Cross-appeal succeeds in part.
  • The rate of interest awarded by the Constitutional Court is reduced from 24% per annum to 6% per annum.
  • Interest runs from the date the consent judgment was sealed in the High Court until payment in full.
  • The respondent is awarded half the costs of the cross-appeal and the costs in the Constitutional Court.

Key headnotes

Civil Procedure — Interest on a Money Decree — Court's Discretion and Application to Government
A court has discretion under section 26(2) of the Civil Procedure Act to order interest on a money decree at such rate as it deems reasonable, and by section 18 of the Government Proceedings Act that power applies to the Government as it does to a private person.
Civil Procedure — Consent Judgment — Decretal Sum as a Debt Attracting Interest
A decretal sum payable under a consent judgment constitutes a debt, and a judgment creditor may be awarded interest on the outstanding sum from the date of the judgment until payment in full even where the consent judgment itself made no provision for interest.
Damages & Quantum — Rate of Interest — Restraint Where Decree is Satisfied From Public Funds
Where a money decree against the Government is to be satisfied from public funds, the court must temper the rate of interest with concern for the public purse; an award of 24% per annum is excessive and 6% per annum, the statutory court rate, is reasonable.
Contract Law — Consent Judgment — Finality and Limited Grounds for Variation
A consent judgment is treated as a fresh agreement binding on the parties and may be set aside or varied only on limited grounds such as illegality, fraud, mistake, collusion, want of consensus or where it is contrary to the policy of the court.

Legislation cited (20)

  • Civil Procedure Act s.26(2)
  • Civil Procedure Act s.26(3)
  • Civil Procedure Act s.27(3)
  • Government Proceedings Act s.18
  • Government Proceedings Act s.3(5)
  • Constitution of Uganda Article 21
  • Constitution of Uganda Article 26
  • Constitution of Uganda Article 26(2)(b)(i)
  • Constitution of Uganda Article 28
  • Constitution of Uganda Article 119(3)
  • Constitution of Uganda Article 126(2)
  • Constitution of Uganda Article 132(3)
  • Constitution of Uganda Article 137
  • Constitution of Uganda Article 137(4)
  • Supreme Court Rules r.87(1)
  • Supreme Court Rules r.91(2)
  • Supreme Court Rules r.79
  • Constitutional Court (Petitions and References) Rules 2005 (S.I. No. 91 of 2005) r.23(2)
  • Constitutional Court (Petitions and References) Rules 2005 r.3(5)(c)
  • Constitutional Court (Petitions and References) Rules 2005 r.7(b)

Cases cited (15)

  • Attorney General v Sam Semanda (Civil Appeal No. 8 of 2006)
  • Ahmed Ibrahim Bholm v Car & General Ltd (Civil Appeal No. 12 of 2002)
  • Shah v Attorney General (No. 2) [1970] EA 523
  • Yahaya G. v Attorney General & Another (Civil Appeal No. 7 of 1994)
  • Sietco v Nobel Builders (U) Ltd (Civil Appeal No. 31 of 1995)
  • Premchandra Shenoi & Anor v Maximov Oleg Petrovich (Civil Appeal No. 9 of 2003)
  • Kimani v Attorney General [1969] EA 502
  • J.K. Patel v Spear Motors Ltd (Civil Appeal No. 4 of 1991)
  • Wasike v Wamboko [1976-1985] EA 625
  • Brooke Bond Liebig (T) Ltd v Mallya [1975] EA 266
  • Attorney General & Another v James Mark Kamoga & Another (Civil Appeal No. 8 of 2004)
  • Hirani v Kassam (1952) 19 EACA 131
  • British American Tobacco (U) Ltd v Sedrach Mwijakubi & 4 Others (Miscellaneous Application No. 7 of 2012)
  • Goodman Agencies Ltd v Attorney General & Another (Constitutional Application No. 1 of 2012)
  • Goodman Agencies Ltd v Hasa Agencies (K) Ltd (Civil Reference No. 1 of 2011)
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.