Wakilii

G.S. Panesar v Attorney General (Civil Suit 196 of 1992)

High Court · [1994] UGHC 125 · 1994 Judgment for Plaintiff AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
First instance civil suit for recovery of money under a government construction contract
Decision
Judgment entered for the plaintiff with interest and costs

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 held that where a government contractor had completed works and received a final payment certificate which remained unpaid beyond the contractual 14-day period, the contractor was entitled to judgment for the certified sum plus interest. The court awarded interest at 30% per annum from the due date, rejecting the plaintiff's claim for 51% as excessive despite high interest rates prevailing in 1989. Judgment after hearing in the absence of the Attorney General was permissible following Attorney General v Sengende.

Outcome

Judgment entered for the plaintiff with interest and costs

Facts

The plaintiff, G.S. Panesar, was a government electrical contractor who signed a contract with the Government on 30 September 1985 to carry out electrical installations at a building on Clement Hill Road/Kitante Road, Kampala valued at shs. 89,329,099. He completed the works and on 1 March 1989 received a final certificate issued by the Ministry of Works and Housing for payment of shs. 4,153,235. Under Clause 30(1) of the contract, the Government was obliged to pay within 14 days of presentation of the certificate, making payment due around 15 March 1989. The Government failed to pay despite the plaintiff's efforts. The Attorney General was served with summons but did not enter appearance or file a defence. The suit proceeded ex parte on 22 December 1993.

Issues

  1. Whether the plaintiff was entitled to recover the sum certified for payment under the construction contract.
  2. Whether the plaintiff was entitled to interest on the certified sum and at what rate.

Orders

  • Judgment entered for the plaintiff in the sum of shs. 4,153,235/=.
  • Interest allowed at the rate of 30% per annum from 15 March 1989 until payment in full.
  • Defendant to pay the costs of the claim.

Rules and key headnotes

Contract Law — Government Contracts — Payment Obligations Under Final Certificate
Where a contractor completes works under a government construction contract and receives a final certificate for payment, the Government is bound to pay the sum certified within the contractual period, and judgment may be entered for the certified amount if payment is not made.
Administrative Law — Litigation Against Government — Judgment in Absence of Appearance
Judgment in default of pleading by Government is prohibited, but judgment after hearing is permissible even where the Attorney General has not entered appearance, provided proper service of hearing notice has been effected.
Damages & Quantum — Interest on Debt — Assessment of Appropriate Rate
Where a debt is not paid when due, the creditor is entitled to interest as compensation for deprivation of use of money whether by investment, trade or consumption. The court may reduce a claimed interest rate where it is not supported by evidence and exceeds prevailing market rates, and must consider both lending and deposit rates prevailing at the relevant time.

Cases cited (1)

  • Attorney General v Sengende (1972) EA 356

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

G.S. Panesar v Attorney General (Civil Suit 196 of 1992) [1994] UGHC 125 (12 January 1994)
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.