Kalibala & Others v The Permanent Secretary Secretary to the Treasury, Ministry of Finance, Planning & Economic Development (Miscellaneous Application 114 of 2023)

Observed later treatment

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.

Holding

The High Court granted consequential orders and issued a writ of mandamus directing the Permanent Secretary to pay former Uganda Electricity Board pensioners approved pension arrears and interest following earlier court judgments ordering payment. The application for a certificate of two counsel was denied as not properly raised before the trial judge.

Outcome

Consequential orders granted directing immediate payment of pension arrears; mandamus issued to compel compliance with earlier judgments

Facts

The applicants are former employees of Uganda Electricity Board who became pensioners before privatisation. The respondent illegally terminated their pension scheme and underpaid them, prompting Civil Suit No. 123 of 2009 in which judgment was entered on 8 May 2015 ordering payment of calculated pension arrears, reinstatement on the pension payroll, and periodic pension. The government delayed computation and payment. In Miscellaneous Application No. 70 of 2016, the court approved computed figures and ordered payment of outstanding pension arrears. Since 30 June 2019, the respondent has not paid periodic pension or reinstated the claimants despite multiple demands. The respondent admitted in affidavit that funds totaling UGX 6,150,770,617 were allocated in FY 2023/2024 to the Ministry of Energy and Mineral Development to cater for pension arrears and monthly pension for former UEB employees.

Issues

1. Whether this is a proper case for the grant of consequential orders
2. Whether the applicants are entitled to the remedies sought, including mandamus and a certificate of two counsel

Orders

• A consequential order is issued directing the Respondent to immediately pay to the Applicants a total sum of UGX 6,150,770,617 as calculated and ascertained periodic pension arrears and interest due for the period between 1st July 2019 to 31st January 2023 following the judgment in HCMA No. 70 of 2016 and Civil Suit No. 123 of 2009.
• An order of mandamus is issued against the Respondent directing it to comply with the court order and certificate in HCMA No. 70 of 2016 and Civil Suit No. 123 of 2009.
• Costs of this application to be paid to the applicant.
• Application for certificate of complexity and two counsel denied.

Rules and key headnotes

Legislation cited (9)

• Constitution of Uganda Article 254
• Judicature Act s.33
• Judicature Act s.36
• Civil Procedure Act s.98
• Civil Procedure Rules Order 52
• Judicial Review Rules rule 3
• Judicial Review Rules rule 6
• Government Proceedings Act s.19
• Advocates (Remuneration Taxation of Costs) Regulations regulation 41

Cases cited (8)

• Kalibala Vincent & Others v Attorney General (Miscellaneous Application No. 70 of 2016)
• Kalibala Vincent & Others v Attorney General (Civil Suit No. 123 of 2009)
• Registered Trustees of Apostolic Church v Okorolemi (1990) 6 NWLR (pt 158) 15
• Pentecostal Assemblies of God Ltd v Joel Mukalu & Others (Miscellaneous Application No. 290 of 2022)
• Patrick Kasumba v Attorney General & Treasury Officer of Accounts (Miscellaneous Application No. 121 of 2010)
• Intex Constructions Ltd v Attorney General & Another (Miscellaneous Cause No. 737 of 2013)
• Oil Seeds (U) Ltd v Chris Kassami (Secretary to the Treasury) (Miscellaneous Application No. 136 of 2008)
• Christopher Sales and another Vs Secretary to the Treasury and Attorney

Cases citing this judgment (1)

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.

• Yawe Roitali v Mukasa Ssebowa Ssempa Peter (Civil Appeal 5 of 2024)

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