Wakilii

Christoper Sales and Another v Secretary to the Treasury and Another (Miscellaneous Cause No. 323 of 2020)

High Court · [2021] UGHCCD 161 · 2021 Application Granted AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Application for writ of mandamus to enforce judgment debt arising from HCCS No. 91 of 2011
Decision
Writ of mandamus issued directing Secretary to the Treasury to pay judgment debt within 30 days

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 High Court granted a writ of mandamus directing the Secretary to the Treasury to satisfy a judgment debt arising from enforcement of a foreign judgment. The court held that where a certificate of order against government has been extracted and served, and no stay of execution obtained, government has a statutory duty under section 19 of the Government Proceedings Act to effect payment. A pending application for review without a stay does not suspend this duty.

Outcome

Writ of mandamus issued directing Secretary to the Treasury to pay judgment debt within 30 days

Facts

The applicants obtained judgment against the Government of Uganda in the US Southern District of New York Court in August 1993, awarding USD 1,894,604.76 to the first applicant and USD 245,637.50 to the second applicant, with interest at 9% per annum. In 2011, the applicants filed HCCS No. 91 of 2011 for enforcement of the foreign judgment, which was granted on 1 February 2013. The respondents appealed to the Court of Appeal, but the appeal was struck out on 28 February 2019 for being filed out of time. The respondents filed a notice of appeal to the Supreme Court but abandoned it, then filed an application for review at the Court of Appeal which remained pending. Certificates of order against government were extracted and served on the respondents in October 2020, but no payment was made. The applicants then brought this application for mandamus to compel payment of the judgment debt.

Issues

  1. Whether this is a matter where the High Court's discretion to grant the applicants' prerogative writ of mandamus should be exercised.
  2. Whether the respondents have any valid legal defence to the grant of this writ.

Orders

  • A writ of mandamus is issued against the 1st Respondent directing him to perform his statutory duty and effect payment in respect of the judgment debt and the Certificate of Order against Government held by the Applicants.
  • The 1st Respondent is directed to provide a timeline for satisfaction of the judgment debt within 30 days.
  • The Applicants are awarded costs of this application.

Rules and key headnotes

Mandamus — Requirements for Grant — Duty to Satisfy Judgment Debt
Before granting a writ of mandamus against government, the court must ensure that the applicant has demonstrated: (a) a right as specified in a judgment or decree of court; (b) a certificate of order against government detailing the amounts payable has been extracted and served; (c) government has refused or failed to pay; (d) there is no dispute as to the amount in the judgment or decree; and (e) there is no alternative remedy available to the applicant.
Mandamus — Discretionary Nature — Clear Legal Right Required
Mandamus is a discretionary order which the court will grant only in suitable circumstances. Before the remedy is given, the applicant must show a clear legal right to have the thing sought done. It cannot be granted as a matter of course. A demand for performance must precede an application for mandamus and the demand must have been unequivocally refused.
Execution — Government Proceedings — Duty to Pay Certificate of Order
Under section 19 of the Government Proceedings Act, government has a statutory duty to satisfy a judgment or decree and to pay the amounts stipulated in a certificate of order against government. The only circumstance for non-satisfaction of a certificate of order is where an appeal exists and a stay of execution has been obtained.
Execution — Stay of Execution — Effect of Pending Review Application
A pending application for review of a court decision does not automatically suspend the obligation to comply with a court order. The only way a litigant can obtain reprieve from obeying a court order before its discharge is by applying for and obtaining a stay of execution. Where no stay has been obtained, the order remains enforceable notwithstanding a pending review application.
Mandamus — Delay in Enforcement — Exceptional Circumstances
Where a judgment debt has remained unsatisfied for an exceptionally long period (in this case 29 years from the original judgment and 10 years from verification and confirmation by the High Court), and the judgment debtor has filed successive appeals and applications without obtaining stays of execution, the court will find that exceptional circumstances exist justifying the grant of mandamus to compel payment.

Legislation cited (20)

Cases cited (13)

  • Shah v Attorney General (No.3) [1970] 1 EA 543
  • Mukasa John v Attorney General & Treasury Officer of Accounts (Miscellaneous Cause No. 94 of 2019)
  • Nampogo Robert and Another v Attorney General (Miscellaneous Application No. 48 of 2009)
  • Southern Range Nyanza Textiles v Attorney General & Two Others (Miscellaneous Application No. 727 of 2014)
  • Intex Construction Ltd v Attorney General & Another (Miscellaneous Cause No. 737 of 2013)
  • Re: An application by Bukoba Gymkhana Club (1963) 478 (TLR)
  • R v Poplar Metropolitan Borough Council ex parte LCC (No.2) [1922] 1 KB 95
  • Oil Seeds (U) Ltd v Chris Kassami (Secretary to The Treasury) (Miscellaneous Application No. 121 of 2008)
  • Oil Seeds (U) Ltd v Chris Kassami (Secretary to the Treasury) (Miscellaneous Application No. 136 of 2008)
  • Patrick Kasumba v Attorney General & Treasury Officer of Accounts (Miscellaneous Application No. 121 of 2010)
  • Haruna Nseko Isabirye v Attorney General & Permanent Secretary (Miscellaneous Application No. 12 of 2018)
  • Hon. Sitenda Sebalu v The Secretary General of the East African Community; Reference No.8 of 2012
  • Hodkinson v Hodkinson [1952] All ER 567

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Christoper Sales and Another v Secretary to the Treasury and Another (Miscellaneous Cause No. 323 of 2020) [2021] UGHCCD 161 (10 November 2021)
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.