Wakilii

Goodman Agencies Ltd & 3 Ors v Attorney General & Anor (HCT-00-CC-ME 108 of 2012)

High Court · [2012] UGCOMMC 178 · 2012 Application Partly Allowed 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 judgment debt pursuant to consent judgment and Constitutional Court order
Decision
Application partly allowed with declaratory relief granted requiring the Secretary to the Treasury to commence payment process

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 held that while the applicants initially failed to comply with section 19 of the Government Proceedings Act by not extracting and serving a certificate of order before filing the application, the government's clear position that it could not pay rendered further procedural compliance unnecessary. The court held that enforcement of the consent judgment engaged constitutional property rights under article 26 and that the government cannot indefinitely delay payment by relying on lack of parliamentary appropriation. The court declined to issue mandamus but granted declaratory relief requiring the Secretary to the Treasury to commence the process of payment in accordance with constitutional procedures, recognising that justice delayed is justice denied.

Outcome

Application partly allowed with declaratory relief granted requiring the Secretary to the Treasury to commence payment process

Facts

Applicants obtained a consent judgment in High Court Civil Suit No. 719 of 1997 for Uganda shillings 14,485,547,842 arising from government's taking of 10 trucks. The Constitutional Court in Petition No. 3 of 2008 upheld the consent judgment and ordered the applicants be at liberty to execute it, with interest at 24% per annum. Despite repeated demands and a previous application for mandamus (HCMA No. 34 of 2011) dismissed as premature, government refused to pay. Government argued it lacked appropriated funds and cited article 154 of the Constitution requiring parliamentary approval for withdrawals from the consolidated fund. The applicants eventually extracted and served a certificate of order against government one day before the hearing. The Secretary to the Treasury deposed that government had insufficient funds to clear all court awards and that payments are made on a first-come first-serve basis.

Issues

  1. Whether the applicants complied with the procedural requirements under the Government Proceedings Act for the grant of an order of mandamus.
  2. Whether the court has jurisdiction to compel the Secretary to the Treasury to pay judgment debt where government contends it lacks appropriated funds under article 154 of the Constitution.
  3. Whether denial of payment of a judgment debt based on a consent judgment arising from compulsory taking of property violates article 26 of the Constitution requiring prompt payment of compensation.
  4. Whether an order of mandamus should issue to compel payment of the judgment debt.

Orders

  • The applicants are entitled to be paid in accordance with the decree of the court executed by consent of the parties save for matters pending in the Supreme Court (award of interest at 24% per annum).
  • The Secretary to the Treasury shall commence the process of payment as held in this ruling in accordance with law.
  • Declaration that the consent decree represents property interests protected by article 26 of the Constitution of the Republic of Uganda as held by the Constitutional Court in Constitutional Petition No. 3 of 2008.
  • Each party will bear its own costs of the application.

Rules and key headnotes

Judicial Review — Enforcement of Fundamental Rights — Procedure
Where Parliament has not yet prescribed rules for enforcement of fundamental rights under article 50(4) of the Constitution, the Judicature (Judicial Review) Rules 2009 may be used to enforce constitutional rights, particularly where a citizen whose constitutional rights are allegedly being violated must not be turned away from court by procedural obstacles.
Property Rights — Compensation — Article 26
A consent judgment for compensation arising from compulsory taking of property by the state represents a property interest protected by article 26 of the Constitution, which requires prompt payment of fair and adequate compensation prior to taking possession or acquisition of property.
Execution — Government Proceedings — Certificate of Order
Where a judgment debtor clearly indicates in affidavit evidence that it will not pay regardless of service of a certificate of order against government, it would be a technicality to dismiss an application for judicial review solely on the ground that the certificate was belatedly served, since the substance of the matter is that government has refused to pay.
Consent Judgments — Enforcement — Procedure
Order 21 rule 7 of the Civil Procedure Rules, which requires parties to approve a draft decree, applies to judgments delivered by a judge and not to consent agreements endorsed by the court as a judgment, since the terms of a consent judgment are already approved by the written signatures of the parties and do not require reversion to the parties for approval.
Mandamus — Discretionary Remedy — Constitutional Limitations
While mandamus may issue to compel the Secretary to the Treasury to perform a statutory duty to pay a judgment debt, the court may exercise discretion to grant declaratory relief rather than mandamus where constitutional provisions require parliamentary appropriation before funds can be withdrawn from the consolidated fund, thereby requiring the government to commence the constitutional process of payment.
Separation of Powers — Judicial Enforcement — Appropriation Requirements
Article 154 of the Constitution requiring parliamentary appropriation before funds are withdrawn from the consolidated fund does not absolve the Secretary to the Treasury from the duty to commence the payment process in respect of a valid court order, particularly where fundamental property rights under article 26 are engaged.
Access to Justice — Delay — Article 126
Under article 126(2)(b) of the Constitution, courts must apply the principle that justice shall not be delayed; where a judgment debt arising from compulsory taking of property remains unpaid for over seven years, fundamental rights are threatened and the court may intervene to require government to commence the payment process notwithstanding the absence of parliamentary appropriation.

Legislation cited (23)

Cases cited (18)

  • Goodman Agencies Ltd v Attorney General (Constitutional Petition No. 3 of 2008)
  • Goodman Agencies Ltd v Attorney General (HCCS No. 719 of 1997)
  • Goodman Agencies Ltd & 3 Ors v Attorney General & Anor (HCMA No. 34 of 2011)
  • Eleko Balume & Ors v Goodman Agencies Ltd & Ors (HCMA No. 12 of 2012)
  • miscellaneous company cause number 44 of 2012
  • Stanbic Bank and others vs. Commissioner General Uganda Revenue Authority
  • Frederick Ssempebwa v Attorney General (Constitutional Petition No. 1 of 1986)
  • Rwomushana v Attorney General (Civil Suit No. 8 of 2006)
  • Shah v Attorney General [1970] EA
  • Oil Seeds Uganda Limited v Secretary to the Treasury (HCMA No. 126 of 2008)
  • Attorney General v Osotraco Ltd (Civil Appeal No. 32 of 2002)
  • Kasibo Joshua v Commissioner of Customs (HCMA No. 44 of 2004)
  • Bukenya Church Ambrose v Attorney-General (Constitutional Petition No. 26 of 2010)
  • Attorney General v Alli and Others (1989) LRC 474
  • Jaundoo v Attorney General of Guyana [1971] AC 972
  • Bennon Turyamureeba & 132 Ors v Attorney General & Anor (Miscellaneous Application No. 440 of 2005)
  • Oil Seeds Uganda Limited v Secretary to the Treasury (HCMA No. 126 of 2008)
  • Shah v Attorney General (No. 3) [1970] EA 543

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Goodman Agencies Ltd & 3 Ors v Attorney General & Anor (HCT-00-CC-ME 108 of 2012) [2012] UGCommC 178 (31 August 2012)
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.