Wakilii

GT Bank Ltd v Richline International Ltd & Anor (HC OS 10 of 2014)

High Court · [2015] UGCOMMC 176 · 2015 Preliminary Objection Dismissed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
First instance civil suit for breach of contract and recovery of outstanding payment, determined on a point of law by agreement of parties
Decision
Preliminary objection dismissed; matter to proceed to trial on remaining issues

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

Held that Article 119(5) of the Constitution requiring Attorney General's consent applies only to contracts to which the Government of Uganda (central government) is a party or has an interest, not to local government councils. Local government councils are distinct entities with decentralised powers under Articles 176 and 180. The preliminary objection based on failure to obtain Attorney General's consent was overruled. The question of whether the contract violated procurement procedures could not be determined without evidence of when and how services were procured.

Outcome

Preliminary objection dismissed; matter to proceed to trial on remaining issues

Facts

On 3 May 2004, the Plaintiff entered into a contract with Kampala City Council and the Ministry of Local Government for solid waste management services in Kawempe Division. The Plaintiff completed the works and was issued a certificate of completion on 17 March 2005. The Defendants acknowledged a debt of UGX 71,312,436 and paid UGX 30,000,000 in part payment, leaving a balance of UGX 41,312,436. The Defendants subsequently refused to pay the balance and demanded a refund, alleging the contract was illegal for non-compliance with procurement procedures and failure to obtain the Attorney General's consent under Article 119(5) of the Constitution. The parties agreed to have the suit determined on a point of law.

Issues

  1. Whether the Defendants are in breach of their contract with the Plaintiff?
  2. Whether failure to obtain the Attorney General's consent under Article 119(5) of the Constitution renders the contract null and void?
  3. Whether the contract was illegal for non-compliance with the Public Procurement and Disposal of Public Assets Act 2003?
  4. What are the remedies available to the aggrieved party?

Orders

  • Preliminary objection based on Article 119(5) of the Constitution overruled.
  • Costs of the preliminary objection awarded to the Plaintiff.
  • Point of law regarding PPDA Act 2003 compliance stayed pending agreement on or adducing of relevant evidence.

Rules and key headnotes

Constitutional Law — Attorney General — Article 119(5) — Scope of Application — Local Government Contracts
Article 119(5) of the Constitution requiring that no agreement to which the Government is a party shall be concluded without legal advice from the Attorney General applies only to contracts involving the Government of Uganda (central government) as defined in Article 257, not to local government councils which are distinct entities with decentralised powers under Articles 176 and 180 of the Constitution.
Administrative Law — Local Government — Decentralisation — Legal Services
Local government councils established under Article 180 of the Constitution have the right to obtain legal services from private practitioners or the Attorney General at their sole discretion, as Article 119 does not apply to local government councils which enjoy legislative and executive powers in their areas of jurisdiction.
Constitutional Law — Interpretation — Definitions — Government versus Local Government
The word 'Government' in Article 119 of the Constitution, which is deliberately capitalised, means the Government of Uganda (central government) as defined in Article 257, and is distinct from 'local government council' where the 'g' in government is not capitalised, indicating a different meaning and scope of application.
Civil Procedure — Determination on Point of Law — Requirements — Agreed or Admitted Facts
For a suit to be determined on a point of law under Order 6 rule 28 of the Civil Procedure Rules, the facts material to the determination must be agreed at the scheduling conference or admitted in the pleadings. Where relevant facts remain in controversy, the point of law cannot be fairly determined and must await trial.
Administrative Law — Procurement — Retrospective Application of Regulations
The Local Government (Public Procurement and Disposal of Public Assets) Regulations 2006 have no retrospective effect and cannot be applied to invalidate a contract executed in 2004 before the regulations came into force.

Legislation cited (21)

Cases cited (16)

  • Behange v School Outfitters (U) Ltd (2000) 1 EA 20
  • United Building Services Ltd v Yafesi Muzira t/a Quick Set Builders and Company (HCCS No. 154 of 2005)
  • Finishing Touches v Attorney General (Civil Suit No. 144 of 2010)
  • Mukasa Anthony Harris v Dr Bayiga Michael Philip (Election Petition Appeal No. 18 of 2007)
  • Nabro Properties Ltd v Sky Structures Ltd and Two Others (2002) 2 KLR
  • Makula International Ltd v Cardinal Nsubuga and Another (1982) HCB 11
  • Eladam Enterprises Ltd versus SGS (U) Ltd, SGS (K) Ltd, Societe General De Surveillance (SA)
  • Mark Foley v United Africa Company Ltd [1961] (PC)
  • Kisugu Quarries v Administrator General (1999) 1 EA 158
  • Uganda Broadcasting Corporation v SINBA (K) Ltd & Others (Civil Appeal No. 12 of 2014)
  • Clear Channel Independent Uganda Ltd v Public Procurement and Disposal of Public Assets Authority (HCMA No. 380 of 2008)
  • Nsimbe Holdings Ltd v Attorney General and Another (Constitutional Petition No. 2 of 2006)
  • Ahmed Ibrahim Bholm v Car and General Ltd (Civil Appeal No. 12 of 2002)
  • NAS Airport Services Ltd v Attorney-General of Kenya [1959] 1 EA 53
  • Everett v Ribbands [1952] 2 QB 198
  • Anold Brooklyn & Company v Kampala Capital City Authority and the Attorney General (Constitutional Petition No. 23 of 2013)

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

GT Bank Ltd v Richline International Ltd & Anor (HC OS 10 of 2014) [2015] UGCommC 176 (14 December 2015)
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.