Bakeine & 3448 Ors v Attorney General & Anor (Civil Application No. 524 of 2010)
Observed later treatment
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 High Court granted an order of mandamus compelling the Treasury Officer of Accounts to pay UGX 21,294,000,000 owed to 3,549 applicants under a consent judgment. The court held that where government fails to pay a decretal sum after a certificate of order has been served under the Government Proceedings Act s.19, mandamus is the appropriate remedy to compel the statutory duty to pay.
Outcome
Order of mandamus granted compelling payment of the decretal sum
Facts
The applicants were plaintiffs in HCCS No. 1022 of 2001 arising from an eviction from their bibanja in 1993 by Uganda Wildlife Authority. On 24 June 2010, a consent judgment was entered awarding UGX 6,000,000 to each of 3,549 applicants, totalling UGX 21,294,000,000. A decree was issued on 5 August 2010 and a certificate of order against government was forwarded to the Treasury Officer of Accounts on 20 August 2010. Despite these procedural steps under the Government Proceedings Act s.19, the government failed to pay. The applicants then brought this application for mandamus to compel payment. The respondents filed no affidavit in reply and no written submissions.
Issues
- Whether an order of mandamus should be issued to compel the Treasury Officer of Accounts to pay a decretal sum awarded by consent judgment.
- Whether the statutory duty under the Government Proceedings Act s.19 to pay judgment debts can be enforced by mandamus.
Orders
- Order of mandamus granted requiring the Commissioner/Treasury Officer of Accounts to perform a constitutional and public duty to pay a decretal sum of UGX 6,000,000 to each of the 3,549 applicants, totalling UGX 21,294,000,000.
- Respondents to meet the costs of the application.
Rules and key headnotes
Legislation cited (5)
Cases cited (1)
- Shah v Attorney General (HCMC No. 31 of 1969)
Cases citing this judgment (1)
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
The original judgment as reported. Read the original PDF before relying on any passage.