Wakilii

Argus Construction & Joinery Ltd v Attorney General (HCT-00-CC-MA 654 of 2006)

High Court · [2006] UGCOMMC 40 · 2006 Application Granted AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Application for an order of mandamus to compel payment of a decree arising from HCT-00-CC-CS-0245-1999
Decision
Order of mandamus issued directing government to pay the judgment debt forthwith

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

The court granted an order of mandamus directing the Commissioner/Treasury Officer of Accounts to pay the decretal sums outstanding under the decree. The court held that the application was not time barred because time runs not from the date of the decree or the certificate of order against government, but from when the applicant determines that the officer will not comply with the certificate voluntarily.

Outcome

Order of mandamus issued directing government to pay the judgment debt forthwith

Facts

The applicant was the successful party in suit HCT-00-CC-CS-0245-1999 and obtained a decree for Shs.20,579,751.00 plus interest at 12% per annum from March 1999 and taxed costs of Shs.12,661,000.00. The decree was extracted in October 2002. Despite obtaining a certificate of order against government on 19 May 2006, the government had not paid the decretal sums. The government did not oppose the application for mandamus, stating only that the case had been listed as 118 in the priority list but funds had not been availed. The government raised a preliminary objection that the application was time barred under Rule 5(1) of the Civil Procedure (Amendment) (Judicial Review) Rules, arguing that time ran from October 2002 when the decree was extracted, making the application filed on 12 July 2006 out of time.

Issues

  1. Whether the court should issue an order of mandamus directing the Commissioner/Treasury Officer of Accounts to pay the decretal sum.
  2. Whether the application for mandamus was time barred under Rule 5(1) of The Civil Procedure (Amendment) (Judicial Review) Rules, S.I. 75 of 2003.

Orders

  • Application for mandamus allowed.
  • The Commissioner/Treasury Officer of Accounts is ordered to pay the decretal sums, interest and costs as allowed by the court, forthwith, and without further or any delay.
  • The Attorney General shall meet the costs of these present proceedings.
  • Preliminary objection that the application was time barred dismissed.

Rules and key headnotes

Civil Procedure — Mandamus — Execution Against Government — Order of Mandamus as Remedy for Non-Payment of Decree
Where government fails to pay a decretal sum after judgment has been entered and a certificate of order against government obtained, the court has jurisdiction to issue an order of mandamus directing the Commissioner/Treasury Officer of Accounts to pay the decretal sums without further delay.
Civil Procedure — Limitation of Actions — Application for Mandamus Against Government — When Time Begins to Run
For purposes of determining when an application for mandamus against government becomes time barred under Rule 5(1) of The Civil Procedure (Amendment) (Judicial Review) Rules, time does not run from the date of the decree or from the date of issue of the certificate of order against government, but runs from when the applicant determines that the government officer will not comply with the certificate of order against government.
Civil Procedure — Execution Against Government — Certificate of Order Against Government — Prerequisite to Mandamus Proceedings
Under Section 19 of the Government Proceedings Act, a judgment creditor must obtain a certificate of order against government before initiating proceedings to compel government to comply with a decree.

Legislation cited (2)

Cases cited (1)

  • Rwomushana v Attorney General

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Argus Construction & Joinery Ltd v Attorney General (HCT-00-CC-MA 654 of 2006) [2006] UGCommC 40 (1 November 2006)
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.