Wakilii

Goodman Agencies Ltd & Ors v The Attorney General (Civil Suit No.719 of 1997) (Civil Suit No.719 of 1997)

High Court · [2007] UGHC 25 · 2007 Application Granted 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 the Attorney General to comply with an earlier judgment and decree
Decision
Leave granted to proceed with application for mandamus; matter adjourned for hearing of substantive mandamus application

Observed later treatment

Cited — treatment unverified cited in 9 (treatment unverified) Sequitur — Uganda’s citator · Derived from citing cases in the Wakilii corpus — not an assertion that this case is good law.

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.

No adverse treatment recorded Cited 9 times with no adverse treatment recorded; not yet tested on the merits. Citations steady — 9 citing cases on record, 3 in the most recent three data years. Derived from citing cases in the Wakilii corpus — a deterministic signal, not legal advice.

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

Where a decree for payment has been issued against the Attorney General and remains unsatisfied, and ordinary execution against government is not permitted by law, the judgment creditors are entitled to proceed by way of judicial review under Order 46A rule 4 of the Civil Procedure Rules to seek an order of mandamus compelling compliance with the decree. The court granted leave to apply for mandamus.

Outcome

Leave granted to proceed with application for mandamus; matter adjourned for hearing of substantive mandamus application

Facts

On 14 November 2005, the High Court issued a decree in favour of the plaintiffs against the Attorney General ordering payment of approximately 14 billion shillings comprising compensation for trucks valued at UGX 1,332,172,842, loss of income of UGX 12,865,370,000, and costs of UGX 300,000,000. Subsequently, the court ordered that the decretal amount be paid into court. The plaintiffs wrote to the Attorney General on 15 December 2005 demanding payment and extracted and served a certificate of decree. Despite these efforts, the Attorney General had not complied with the decree. Since execution against government is not permitted by law, the plaintiffs applied for judicial review seeking an order of mandamus.

Issues

  1. Whether the court should grant leave to proceed by way of judicial review for an order of mandamus directing the Government to comply with the judgment and decree of the court dated 14 November 2005.
  2. Whether the judgment creditors are entitled to an order of mandamus where ordinary execution against government is not permitted by law.

Orders

  • Application granted under Order 46A rule 4 of the Civil Procedure Rules.
  • Costs shall be in the cause.
  • A date for application for mandamus to be fixed.

Rules and key headnotes

Civil Procedure — Execution — Execution Against Government — Remedies Where Ordinary Execution Not Available
Where a decree for payment has been issued against the Attorney General and ordinary execution is not available because execution against government is not permitted by law, judgment creditors may proceed by way of judicial review under Order 46A rule 4 of the Civil Procedure Rules to seek an order of mandamus compelling the government to comply with the decree.
Administrative Law — Mandamus — Grounds for Grant — Enforcement of Court Decrees Against Government
An application for leave to seek mandamus to enforce a court decree against government will be granted where there is no other mode or channel for recovery of the decretal amounts and the government has failed to satisfy the decree despite demand and service.

Legislation cited (1)

Cases citing this judgment (9)

How later Ugandan judgments in the Wakilii corpus have cited this case. Treatment labels come from Sequitur — Uganda’s citator — each backed by a verbatim span from the citing judgment, and are not an assertion that this case is, or is not, good law.

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Goodman Agencies Ltd & Ors v The Attorney General (Civil Suit No.719 of 1997) (Civil Suit No.719 of 1997) [2007] UGHC 25 (13 August 2007)
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.