Wakilii

Democratic party & anor v Attorney general & anor (Cause No. 372 of 2013 Out of Eacj Ref 06 2010 & App No. 06 of 2011)

High Court · [2014] UGHCCD 159 · 2014 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 payment of costs awarded by the East African Court of Justice
Decision
Application struck out as premature for non-compliance with mandatory statutory procedure

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

An application for mandamus to compel payment of a costs order against Government is premature and incompetent where filed before obtaining and serving a certificate of order against Government as required by section 19 of the Government Proceedings Act. The certificate cannot operate retrospectively to cure the defective filing.

Outcome

Application struck out as premature for non-compliance with mandatory statutory procedure

Facts

The applicants obtained a costs order of USD 51,556 from the East African Court of Justice. They filed an application for mandamus in the High Court on 30 December 2013 to compel the Attorney General and Treasury Officer of Accounts to pay the amount. The certificate of order against Government was issued on 7 January 2014 and served on the Attorney General on 17 January 2014 and on the Treasury Officer on 10 February 2014. The respondents objected that the application was filed before any demand was made in accordance with section 19 of the Government Proceedings Act, which requires that a certificate of order be obtained and served before any action to enforce payment can be taken.

Issues

  1. Whether the applicant complied with section 19 of the Government Proceedings Act and made effective demand for payment prior to filing the application for mandamus.
  2. Whether an order of mandamus can be granted where the application was filed before a certificate of order against Government was obtained and served on the Attorney General.

Orders

  • Application struck out.
  • Costs awarded to the respondents.

Rules and key headnotes

Administrative Law — Mandamus — Prerequisites for Grant — Demand for Performance
Before the remedy of mandamus is granted, the applicant must show a clear legal right to have the thing sought done, and a demand for performance must precede the application for mandamus, which demand must have been unequivocally refused.
Civil Procedure — Enforcement Against Government — Certificate of Order — Statutory Requirements
Under section 19 of the Government Proceedings Act, any party seeking to satisfy an order against Government including an order for costs must first obtain a certificate of order against Government specifying the sum due, which certificate must be served on the Attorney General before payment becomes enforceable.
Civil Procedure — Enforcement Against Government — Premature Applications
An application for mandamus to compel payment of a judgment debt against Government is premature and incompetent where it is filed before the certificate of order against Government has been obtained and served on the Attorney General as required by section 19 of the Government Proceedings Act.
Administrative Law — Mandamus — Statutory Duty — When Duty Arises
An order of mandamus cannot be issued against Government officials for failure to execute a statutory duty where no certificate of order has been served as required by section 19(2) of the Government Proceedings Act, as no statutory duty to pay arises until such service is effected.

Legislation cited (7)

Cases cited (3)

  • Oil Seeds v Chris Kassami (Miscellaneous Application No. 136 of 2008)
  • Patrick Kasumba v Attorney General and Treasury Officer of Accounts (Miscellaneous Application No. 121 of 2010)
  • Goodman Agencies Ltd v Attorney General and Treasury Officer of Accounts (Miscellaneous Application No. 34 of 2011)

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Democratic party & anor v Attorney general & anor (Cause No. 372 of 2013 Out of Eacj Ref 06_2010 & App No. 06 of 2011) [2014] UGHCCD 159 (2 April 2014)
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.