Wakilii

American Procurement Company v Attorney General & Anor (Civil Suit No. 735 of 2006)

High Court · [2008] UGCOMMC 65 · 2008 Suit Dismissed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
First instance civil suit for payment under government contract, with Inspectorate of Government joined as second defendant
Decision
Suit dismissed. Plaintiff ordered to pay costs of the second defendant.

Observed later treatment

Cited — treatment unverified cited in 2 (treatment unverified) Sequitur — Uganda’s citator · Derived from citing cases in the Wakilii corpus — not an assertion that this case is good law.

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.

No adverse treatment recorded Cited 2 times with no adverse treatment recorded; not yet tested on the merits. Derived from citing cases in the Wakilii corpus — a deterministic signal, not legal advice.

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

Held that the Inspectorate of Government (IGG) enjoys immunity from suit under section 22(1) of the Inspectorate of Government Act 2002 for actions done in good faith in the performance of its duties. The IGG's investigation into alleged fraudulent payments and its stop order halting payment to the plaintiff constituted a valid defence. The plaintiff's suit failed because it did not plead particulars of bad faith against the IGG and disclosed no cause of action. As to the Attorney General, the IGG's lawful stop order itself constituted a defence preventing payment.

Outcome

Suit dismissed. Plaintiff ordered to pay costs of the second defendant.

Facts

In January 2006, American Procurement Company contracted with the Ministry of Works, Housing and Communication to conduct ex-post facto auditing of works, goods and services. The plaintiff completed the work and invoiced the Ministry for UGX 3,244,229,123 plus delayed payment interest of UGX 919,364,490, totalling UGX 4,163,593,613. The Inspectorate of Government (IGG) received a complaint alleging the payment was based on a fraudulent contract. On 11 April 2006, the IGG issued a stop order halting payment pending investigation. The Attorney General indicated willingness to pay but was prevented by the IGG's stop order. Over two years later, the investigation remained incomplete. The IGG applied to be joined as second defendant, which was granted. The plaintiff did not amend its plaint to include specific allegations against the IGG.

Issues

  1. Whether the investigation by the Inspectorate of Government constitutes a defence to the plaintiff's suit for payment under a government contract?
  2. Whether the suit was premature or improperly before court?
  3. Whether the Inspectorate of Government has immunity from suit under section 22(1) of the Inspectorate of Government Act?
  4. Whether the plaintiff's failure to plead bad faith against the Inspectorate of Government is fatal to its claim?

Orders

  • Suit dismissed.
  • Each party to bear its own costs as between the plaintiff and the Attorney General.
  • Plaintiff to pay the costs of the suit as between the plaintiff and the Inspectorate of Government.

Rules and key headnotes

Inspectorate of Government — Powers — Investigation and stop orders
The Inspectorate of Government has constitutional and statutory power under Article 225(1)(b) of the Constitution and sections 12 and 14 of the Inspectorate of Government Act 2002 to investigate allegations of corruption and abuse of office, and to stop transactions including contractual payments while investigations are ongoing.
Inspectorate of Government — Immunity from suit — Good faith test
Under section 22(1) of the Inspectorate of Government Act 2002, the Inspectorate of Government and its officers enjoy immunity from civil proceedings for anything done in good faith in the course of performing their duties. The good faith test is a question of fact to be determined case by case and can constitute a cause of action against the IGG.
Inspectorate of Government — Judicial review — Not the exclusive remedy
Judicial review is not the only remedy available to a litigant against the Inspectorate of Government. Where bad faith can be established, a civil suit alleging breach of the good faith requirement may constitute a valid cause of action.
Inspectorate of Government — Investigations — Reasonable time
Where a statute is silent about a time frame for completing an investigation, the law assumes it ought to be done within a reasonable time. Inordinate delay in completing an investigation may fail the good faith test under section 22(1) of the Inspectorate of Government Act, though what constitutes reasonable time is a question of fact.
Pleadings — Failure to amend — Deemed reliance on original pleadings
Under Order 6 rule 24 of the Civil Procedure Rules, where a party does not amend its pleading in response to an amendment by the opposite party, that party is deemed to rely on the original pleadings in reply to that amendment. Failure to plead particulars of bad faith against a defendant claiming statutory immunity is fatal to the claim.

Legislation cited (19)

Cases cited (1)

  • Mukisa Biscuits Co v West End Distributors [1969] EA 696

Cases citing this judgment (2)

How later Ugandan judgments in the Wakilii corpus have cited this case. Treatment labels come from Sequitur — Uganda’s citator — each backed by a verbatim span from the citing judgment, and are not an assertion that this case is, or is not, good law.

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

American Procurement Company v Attorney General & Anor (Civil Suit No. 735 of 2006) [2008] UGCommC 65 (1 December 2008)
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.