Wakilii

Beachside Development Services Ltd v National Forestry Authority (Misc Cause No. 03 of 2012)

High Court · [2013] UGHCCD 6 · 2013 Application Dismissed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Application for judicial review seeking an order of mandamus to compel execution of a licence agreement pursuant to a Court of Appeal consent settlement
Decision
Application for judicial review dismissed on the basis that the licence agreement had been executed and the relief sought was rendered unnecessary

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 declined to issue an order of mandamus where the licence agreement sought to be compelled had already been executed before the application was heard. An order of mandamus cannot issue to compel performance of an act already performed. Individual officers need not be joined as parties when mandamus is sought against the statutory body responsible for the duty. Statutory immunity provisions do not bar judicial review of the decision-making process. Damages were not warranted where the licence period remained intact and the delay was justified by legitimate consultation with the Attorney General.

Outcome

Application for judicial review dismissed on the basis that the licence agreement had been executed and the relief sought was rendered unnecessary

Facts

The applicant obtained judgment against the National Forestry Authority in the High Court in 2009, which was upheld by the Court of Appeal in 2009. On 28 January 2011, a consent settlement was filed requiring the 1st respondent to issue a licence to the applicant within two months. The applicant claimed the licence had not been executed by January 2012 and sought an order of mandamus compelling the 2nd and 3rd respondents (officials of the 1st respondent) to execute it. The respondents filed affidavits stating the licence had been executed as of 11 January 2012. The applicant also sought damages for lost business due to the delay in issuing the licence. The respondents attributed the delay to consultation with the Attorney General regarding constitutional requirements.

Issues

  1. Whether an order of mandamus should issue to compel the respondents to execute a licence agreement already executed by the time of the application.
  2. Whether the 2nd and 3rd respondents should be parties to the application for mandamus.
  3. Whether the immunity provisions of s.69 of the National Forestry Authority and Tree Planting Act 2003 bar judicial review proceedings against officers acting in good faith.
  4. Whether the applicant is entitled to damages for delay in executing the licence agreement.

Orders

  • Application dismissed.
  • Costs awarded to the respondents.

Rules and key headnotes

Mandamus — Prerequisites — Performance of Duty Already Completed
An order of mandamus will not issue to compel the performance of a public duty that has already been performed at the time the court hears the application, as the order would serve no purpose and would be rendered unnecessary.
Mandamus — Prerequisites — Demand and Refusal
Before an order of mandamus can issue, the applicant must establish a clear legal right to have the thing sought to be done, that the duty is plainly incumbent by operation of law, that there has been a demand for performance, and that there has been a refusal to perform the act.
Judicial Review — Parties — Joinder of Individual Officers
Where an order of mandamus is sought against a statutory body to compel performance of a statutory duty, it is unnecessary to join as parties the individual officers responsible for executing the decision, as an order against the statutory body will be enforceable by the appropriate officers within the body.
Statutory Immunity — Application to Judicial Review Proceedings
Statutory immunity provisions protecting public officers from personal liability for acts done in good faith do not extend to bar judicial review proceedings, as judicial review is concerned with the decision-making process and ensuring that public powers are exercised in accordance with basic standards of legality, fairness and rationality, not with vindicating private rights.

Legislation cited (10)

Cases cited (3)

  • Semwo Construction Company v Rukungiri District Local Government (Misc Cause No. 30 of 2010)
  • SHAH Vs ATTORNEY GENERAL (No. 3) 1970 E.A
  • Lukwago Erias v Jennifer Musisi (Misc Cause No. 116 of 2011)

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Beachside Development Services Ltd v National Forestry Authority (Misc Cause No. 03 of 2012) [2013] UGHCCD 6 (21 January 2013)
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.