Wakilii

Behangana & Anor v Attorney General & Anor (MA 304 OF 2016)

High Court · [2017] UGHCCD 14 · 2017 Application Dismissed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Application for mandamus to compel payment arising from Constitutional Application No. 73 of 2010
Decision
Application for mandamus dismissed with costs to the respondent

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

Held that mandamus cannot issue to compel payment of costs on an interlocutory order while the substantive constitutional petition remains pending. The court declined to execute the award where the respondent had filed an application to set aside the ex parte taxation proceedings and the main cause had not reached its logical conclusion.

Outcome

Application for mandamus dismissed with costs to the respondent

Facts

The applicants obtained an interlocutory costs order of UGX 48,044,000 in Constitutional Application No. 73 of 2010. They served a certificate of order on the Attorney General on 22 November 2012 as required by section 19 of the Government Proceedings Act. The respondents did not pay. The applicants then filed this application for mandamus to compel payment. The respondents had filed Constitutional Court Miscellaneous Application No. 34 of 2012 to set aside the ex parte taxation proceedings that led to the award, but had not prosecuted it. The underlying Constitutional Petition No. 53 of 2010 remained pending.

Issues

  1. Whether mandamus should issue to compel the Attorney General to pay costs awarded on an interlocutory order when the substantive constitutional petition remains pending.
  2. Whether mandamus can issue where the award sought to be executed is contested by a pending application to set aside ex parte taxation proceedings.

Orders

  • Application for mandamus dismissed.
  • Costs awarded to the respondent.

Rules and key headnotes

Mandamus — Conditions for Granting — Payment of Interlocutory Costs
Mandamus cannot issue to compel the Attorney General to honour costs awarded on an interlocutory order when the substantive cause remains pending, as the practice of the courts is not to execute awards on interlocutory orders while the main cause is undecided.
Execution — Interlocutory Orders — Pending Substantive Cause
Where the main cause may result in a different outcome, execution of interlocutory awards is inappropriate as the person paid may be unjustly enriched and it may lead to abuse of process and multiplicity of applications.
Mandamus — Applicant's Duty to Prosecute Main Cause
For an applicant to invoke prerogative orders of the High Court, they must have fully discharged their responsibilities under the litigation that led to the certificate of order, including prosecuting the main petition to its logical conclusion.
Procedural Requirements — Government Proceedings Act Section 19
An applicant seeking mandamus against government must demonstrate compliance with section 19 of the Government Proceedings Act by serving a certificate of order on the respondent, but such compliance is not alone sufficient to warrant issuance of the order.

Legislation cited (3)

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Behangana & Anor v Attorney General & Anor (MA 304 OF 2016) [2017] UGHCCD 14 (1 February 2017)
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.