Wakilii

Abola and Others v Treasury officer and Another (Civil Miscellaneous Application No. 173 of 2018)

High Court · [2021] UGHCCD 120 · 2021 Application Partly Allowed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Application for mandamus to enforce payment of pension arrears under a consent judgment and certificate of order against government
Decision
Mandamus issued for admitted sum with 90-day deadline; respondents directed to verify and pay remaining amount within 90 days or face mandamus for entire outstanding sum

Observed later treatment

No later-treatment classification is recorded for this judgment.

Citator coverage is limited to judgments in the Wakilii corpus and source-matched treatment records. Absence of a signal is not an assertion that the case remains 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

Mandamus granted in part to compel government payment of pension arrears to 161 ex-policemen. Court ordered immediate payment of UGX 1,304,094,643 which respondents admitted owing. Court directed respondents to verify remaining sum within 90 days, failing which mandamus would issue for entire outstanding amount. Preliminary objection that affidavit lacked written authority to swear on behalf of co-applicants was dismissed.

Outcome

Mandamus issued for admitted sum with 90-day deadline; respondents directed to verify and pay remaining amount within 90 days or face mandamus for entire outstanding sum

Facts

161 ex-policemen were among 6,339 plaintiffs who obtained a consent judgment in 2000 for pension arrears totalling UGX 7,356,283,107 with 6% annual interest. A certificate of order against government was extracted in 2018 for UGX 35,088,680,000. The applicants sought mandamus to compel payment after government refused to pay. Respondents contested the certificate, claiming it was overstated, and submitted that after verification only 128 claimants were entitled to UGX 1,304,094,643, alleging some had been paid or were on the payroll. Applicants denied these claims and argued that government's verification exercise amounted to reviewing the court order. The consent judgment remained unvaried and unappealed.

Issues

  1. Whether the application meets the criteria for issue of a Writ of Mandamus?
  2. What remedies are available to the parties?

Orders

  • Writ of Mandamus issued requiring respondents to pay UGX 1,304,094,643 to applicants within 90 days.
  • Order directing respondents to verify and ascertain applicants' entitlement to the sum of UGX 33,784,585,357, pay the same within 90 days and report to Court.
  • In case of failure to comply with verification order, mandamus to issue for entire outstanding sum with applicants deemed collectors for all plaintiffs in HCCS No. 1029 of 1998.
  • Costs of the application awarded to the applicants.

Rules and key headnotes

Evidence — Affidavits — Authority to swear on behalf of others
Where an application is brought by multiple individuals in their respective capacities and one applicant depones to an affidavit stating facts within common knowledge of all applicants, no written authority from co-applicants is required for that affidavit to be valid. Competency to swear an affidavit is pegged to ability to depose to facts within personal knowledge, not to authorisation by other parties. The analogy between representative suits and giving evidence is misplaced, as initiating a suit in another's name raises issues of autonomy requiring authorisation, while adducing evidence of facts bearing on another's case already before court does not.
Judicial Review — Mandamus — Criteria for issuance
For an order of mandamus to issue, the applicant must establish: (a) a clear right on the part of the applicant and a corresponding duty on the part of the respondent; (b) that some specific act or thing which the law requires a particular officer to do has been omitted; (c) lack of any alternative remedy, or where an alternative remedy exists, it is inconvenient, less beneficial, less effective or totally ineffective. In enforcement of court decrees, the applicant must show they enjoyed a right specified by a decree of court, a certificate of order against government has been extracted and served, and the respondent has refused to honour it.
Certificate of Order — Challenge by appeal
Under Section 19(3) of the Government Proceedings Act, a respondent aggrieved by the issuance of a certificate of order has the option of appealing against it. Where no such appeal is preferred and the matter comes before the court for enforcement, it is not open to the respondent to raise in enforcement proceedings challenges that ought to have been raised by way of appeal.
Separation of Powers — Verification of amounts due under decree
Verification or scrutiny by government of amounts payable under a court decree does not constitute review of the court order in violation of Article 128(1) of the Constitution. Where a decree requires computation of amounts due and ascertainment of amounts payable to each beneficiary, such verification is a necessary administrative step for enforcement and does not amount to judicial review by the executive.
Admissions — Effect of unambiguous admission
An unambiguous and unequivocal admission by a party as to a sum of money owed amounts to a proper admission under Order 13 Rule 6 of the Civil Procedure Rules, upon which the court may enter an order on admission requiring payment of the admitted sum.

Legislation cited (12)

Cases cited (14)

  • Professor Mondo Kagonyera v Attorney General and National Social Security Fund (Miscellaneous Cause No. 10 of 2010)
  • Kasibo Joshua v Commissioner of Customs URA (Miscellaneous Application No. 44 of 2007)
  • Baligobye and Others v Attorney General and Others (Miscellaneous Cause No. 376 of 2019)
  • Amos Bakeine and Others v Attorney General and Another (Miscellaneous Application No. 524 of 2010)
  • Binaisa Nakalema and Others v Mucunguzi Myers (Miscellaneous Application No. 460 of 2013)
  • Taremwa Kamishana Thomas v Attorney General (Miscellaneous Application No. 48 of 2012)
  • Mukuye and Others v Madhvani Group Ltd (Miscellaneous Application No. 821 of 2013)
  • BankOne Limited v Simbamanyo Estates Ltd (Miscellaneous Application No. 645 of 2020)
  • Combined Services Ltd v Attorney General and Another (Miscellaneous Application No. 648 of 2015)
  • Goodman Agencies Ltd and Others v Attorney General and Treasury Officer of Accounts (Miscellaneous Application No. 126 of 2008)
  • Nampogo Robert and Another v Attorney General (Miscellaneous Application No. 48 of 2009)
  • Industrial and Commercial Development Corporation v Daber Enterprises Ltd [2000] 1 EA 75
  • Future Stars Investment (U) Ltd v Nasuru Yusuf (High Court Civil Suit No. 12 of 2017)
  • Andrew Mirembe Tumwebaze v Deox Tibeingana (Miscellaneous Application No. 149 of 2020)

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

The original judgment as reported. Read the original PDF before relying on any passage.

Abola and Others v Treasury officer and Another (Civil Miscellaneous Application No. 173 of 2018) [2021] UGHCCD 120 (8 November 2021)
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.