Wakilii

Kalibbala & Anor v Attorney General (Misc. Application No. 70 of 2015)

High Court · [2016] UGHCCD 46 · 2016 Application Granted AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Application for consequential orders arising from High Court Civil Suit No. 123 of 2009
Decision
Consequential orders granted compelling immediate payment of computed pension arrears totalling UGX 25,739,251,935 to 562 applicants through their advocates

Observed later treatment

Cited — treatment unverified cited in 3 (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 3 times with no adverse treatment recorded; not yet tested on the merits. Citations rising — 4 citing cases on record, 4 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

Held that consequential orders are properly granted where implementation of a judgment is impossible without further court directions. Where a court orders computation of pension arrears to be done with haste, a period of ten months without evidence of compliance demonstrates unwillingness and warrants consequential orders. The phrase 'with haste' means with urgency and in the circumstances a period of six months would be reasonable. Court adopted the applicants' computation of pension arrears where the respondent failed to deny the figures sworn in the affidavit.

Outcome

Consequential orders granted compelling immediate payment of computed pension arrears totalling UGX 25,739,251,935 to 562 applicants through their advocates

Facts

562 former Uganda Electricity Board employees filed suit in 2009 seeking unpaid pension and terminal benefits. On 8 May 2015, the High Court delivered judgment in their favour ordering that they be reinstated on the pension payroll and that the respondent, in consultation with the Auditor General, compute and ascertain pension arrears with haste. Ten months after judgment, no computation had been done. The applicants filed this application seeking consequential orders to compel compliance with the judgment. The respondent claimed that consultation with the Auditor General was ongoing and that the delay was due to the large number of applicants. A letter from the Auditor General dated 15 October 2012 indicated unwillingness to be involved, stating that his office had completed its statutory role. The applicants submitted their own computation of the amounts due totalling UGX 25,739,251,935 as at 29 February 2016, which the respondent did not deny.

Issues

  1. Whether this is a proper case for consequential orders.
  2. Whether the applicants are entitled to the orders prayed for in the application.

Orders

  • Application allowed.
  • Consequential order issued that the respondent immediately pays to the applicants the total sum of UGX 25,739,251,935 as calculated and ascertained terminal benefits and/or pension and arrears thereof, general damages, and interest thereon as of 29 February 2016.
  • All pension arrears and decretal sums to be paid through the applicants' advocates M/s Bashasha & Co. Advocates for onward transmission to the applicants.
  • Prayer for further interest on terminal benefits up to the date of ruling declined.
  • Prayer for certificate of complexity and certificate of two counsel declined.
  • Costs of the application awarded to the applicants.

Rules and key headnotes

Civil Procedure — Consequential Orders — Definition and Purpose
A consequential order is an order of court giving effect to the judgment or decision to which it is consequential or resultant therefrom. Such an order is normally directly traceable to or flowing from the judgment and is applied for where the court hands out a judgment but the implementation of the judgment is impossible except with further orders of court.
Civil Procedure — Consequential Orders — When Proper to Grant
Consequential orders are properly granted where a party demonstrates that without such orders, the judgment of the court will never be complied with and the purpose of the judgment would be defeated.
Civil Procedure — Compliance with Court Orders — Meaning of 'With Haste'
Where a court orders that an act be done 'with haste', this phrase means with excessive speed or urgency of action, immediately, without wasting any time or quickly. Depending on the circumstances of the case, the act to be done must be done immediately or within reasonable time in order to show that the matter is being treated urgently. A period of six months may fit the meaning of haste in the context of computing pension arrears for multiple claimants.
Evidence — Burden of Proof — Facts Sworn in Affidavit
Where certain facts are sworn to in an affidavit, the burden to deny them is on the other party. If the other party does not deny those facts, they are presumed to have been accepted.
Employment & Labour — Pension — Computation and Payment
Where a court orders that pension arrears be computed and ascertained, a period of ten months without evidence of any computation or concrete steps taken to implement the court order does not depict urgency and demonstrates unwillingness to comply, warranting the grant of consequential orders compelling immediate payment based on the applicants' own computation where the respondent has not denied the figures.

Legislation cited (4)

Cases cited (3)

  • Obayagbona v Obazee [1970] 5 SC 247
  • Odofin v Agu [1992] NWLR (Pt 229) 35
  • Samwiri Massa v Rose Achen [1978] HCB 297

Cases citing this judgment (3)

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.

Kalibbala & Anor v Attorney General (Misc. Application No. 70 of 2015) [2016] UGHCCD 46 (27 June 2016)
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.