Wakilii

Kato v Attorney General & Anor (Miscellaneous Application No. 285 of 2016)

High Court · [2016] UGHCEBD 7 · 2016 Application Granted AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Application for an order of mandamus to compel execution of a Uganda Human Rights Commission decision
Decision
Writ of mandamus issued compelling the Treasury Officer of Accounts to pay the applicant the decreed sum with interest and costs

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 mandamus will issue where there is a clear legal right and corresponding duty, a specific omitted act required by law, and no adequate alternative remedy. A Uganda Human Rights Commission decision creates a statutory duty on government to pay the decreed amount. Where government has been served with a certificate of order and has neither appealed nor paid within the statutory time, mandamus is the appropriate remedy to compel the Treasury Officer of Accounts to perform that statutory duty and pay the judgment creditor.

Outcome

Writ of mandamus issued compelling the Treasury Officer of Accounts to pay the applicant the decreed sum with interest and costs

Facts

The applicant was a victim of police brutality at Kisseka Market in 2008. He was beaten so badly that he was unable to walk. He filed a complaint with the Uganda Human Rights Commission alleging violation of his right to freedom from torture. On 12 May 2014, the Commission partly allowed his complaint and ordered the Attorney General to pay him Shs. 4,000,000 as general damages plus 10% interest per annum from the date of decision until payment in full. The order and certificate of order against government were served on the Solicitor General, but no payment was made. The government filed no appeal. The applicant applied for mandamus to compel payment. The respondents were served but did not appear or file any response.

Issues

  1. Whether this is a suitable case to grant an order of mandamus to compel the Treasury Officer of Accounts to pay the applicant sums awarded by the Uganda Human Rights Commission

Orders

  • Application allowed.
  • Writ of mandamus to issue compelling the Treasury Officer of Accounts to pay the Applicant the sum of Shs. 4,000,000 as general damages.
  • Interest at 10% per annum on Shs. 4,000,000 calculated from 12 May 2014 until payment in full.
  • Costs of the application awarded to the Applicant.

Rules and key headnotes

Mandamus — Conditions for Issuance — Clear Legal Right and Corresponding Duty
For an order of mandamus to issue, an applicant must prove: (i) a clear legal right and a corresponding duty in the respondent; (ii) that some specific act or thing which the law requires a particular officer to do has been omitted to be done by him; (iii) lack of any alternative remedy, or (iv) that though an alternative remedy exists, it is inconvenient, less beneficial, less effective, or totally ineffective.
Mandamus — Uganda Human Rights Commission Decisions — Statutory Duty to Pay
A decree or order of payment made against government by the Uganda Human Rights Commission becomes a statutory duty for the government officer concerned to perform. The High Court is empowered under section 36(1)(a) of the Judicature Act to issue orders of mandamus directed to an officer of government to do a duty that is statutorily provided for.
Enforcement of UHRC Decisions — Execution Procedure
Under Rule 24 of the Human Rights Commission Procedure Rules 1998, execution of Uganda Human Rights Commission decisions is governed by the rules applicable to the High Court. The Commission's file may be forwarded to the High Court for execution.
Mandamus — Government Refusal to Pay Decreed Amounts — Unconstitutionality
The continued refusal by government to pay decreed amounts to a judgment creditor is unconstitutional and amounts to continuous breach of the applicant's rights. Where government has been served with a certificate of order against government and fails to pay without filing an appeal, mandamus is the appropriate remedy.
Exparte Proceedings — Service and Non-Appearance
Where respondents have been duly served with an application and have acknowledged receipt but fail to file a reply or attend court without explanation, the court may allow the application to proceed exparte.

Legislation cited (7)

Cases cited (2)

  • Nampoga Robert and Another v Attorney General (Miscellaneous Cause No. 48 of 2009)
  • Janet Kobusingye v Uganda Land Commission (Miscellaneous Application No. 28 of 2013)

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Kato v Attorney General & Anor (Miscellaneous Application No. 285 of 2016) [2016] UGHCEBD 7 (2 May 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.