Wakilii

Lukwago v Attorney General (Miscellaneous Cause 28 of 2020)

High Court · [2023] UGHCCD 144 · 2023 Application Granted AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Application for an Order of Mandamus to enforce payment of a judgment debt arising from Civil Suit No. 25 of 2009
Decision
Writ of Mandamus issued compelling Government to pay judgment debt within 14 days

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 an Order of Mandamus will issue to compel Government to pay a judgment debt where the applicant has extracted and served a Certificate of Order, no appeal has been filed, and Government has failed to pay without lawful excuse. The requirement that funds be appropriated by Parliament does not absolve Government of its obligation to pay judgment debts. Government must prioritize and budget for judgment debts to ensure timely compliance with court orders. Application allowed.

Outcome

Writ of Mandamus issued compelling Government to pay judgment debt within 14 days

Facts

The Applicant obtained judgment in Civil Suit No. 25 of 2009 on 3 April 2017 against the Attorney General for UGX 92,351,600 comprising special damages, general damages, interest, and costs. Costs were taxed on 1 February 2018. The Applicant extracted a Certificate of Order against Government and served it on the Attorney General on 28 February 2018 together with a written demand for payment. No appeal was filed. By 2023, five years after service of the Certificate of Order, Government had not paid the judgment debt. The Applicant applied for an Order of Mandamus to compel payment. Government opposed the application on grounds that the funds had not been appropriated by Parliament for the relevant financial year and that payment could not be made without parliamentary authorization.

Issues

  1. Whether the present application is a proper case for the issuance of a writ of Mandamus.
  2. What remedies are available to the parties.

Orders

  • Application allowed.
  • A writ of Mandamus issued in favour of the Applicant and specifically against the Permanent Secretary, Ministry of Finance and Economic Development/Secretary to the Treasury directing them to pay to Mr. Habib Lukwago all monies, interest and costs due to him vide the judgment and decree at the Chief Magistrate's Court of Jinja at Jinja within 14 days of their receipt of the order.
  • Costs of the application awarded to the Applicant.

Rules and key headnotes

Administrative Law — Mandamus — Enforcement of Judgment Debts Against Government — Conditions for Issuance
For an Order of Mandamus to issue to enforce a judgment debt against Government, the applicant must demonstrate that: (a) it enjoyed a right; (b) the right is specified by a decree of Court; (c) a Certificate of Order against the Government has been extracted and duly served on the respondents; and (d) the respondents refused to honour the Certificate of Order by refusing to pay the amount decreed therein.
Administrative Law — Mandamus — Government Obligation to Pay Judgment Debts — Budgetary Appropriation Not a Precondition
Section 19(3) of the Government Proceedings Act imposes an obligation on the Treasury Officer of accounts or such other Government Accounting Officer to pay judgment debts, with an exception for non-satisfaction only where an appeal exists. The provision does not condition payment on the applicant providing evidence that the amount forms part of authorized expenditures, budgetary allocations, or parliamentary approvals. The applicant is not concerned with the payment processes but only with obtaining the money due.
Constitutional Law — Separation of Powers — Duty of State Organs to Assist Courts — Article 128(3)
Article 128(3) of the Constitution provides that all organs and agencies of the State shall accord to the Courts such assistance as may be required to ensure the effectiveness of the Courts. Failure to assist the courts in the matter of satisfaction of a judgment debt is a clear violation of this Constitutional provision.
Administrative Law — Judgment Debts — Government's Duty to Budget for and Prioritize Payment
It is the responsibility of those managing the affairs of Government to ensure that at any time there are, within the budgetary provisions of Government, funds to satisfy Courts' decisions so that at no time the Government is made to appear as disobeying such orders when Courts of law make them. The failure to pay judgment debts is not a problem of law or procedure but a failure to prioritize and lack of commitment to pay.
Civil Procedure — Execution Against Government — Mode of Enforcement — Immunity from Attachment
Where decrees for the payment of money or costs have been issued against the Government in favour of a litigant, the decree can only be enforced by way of an Order of Mandamus compelling the accounting officer in the relevant ministry to pay the decretal sum, as the Government is protected and given immunity from execution and attachment of its property or goods under Section 14 of the Government Proceedings Act.

Legislation cited (19)

Cases cited (6)

  • Mukasa John v Attorney General and Another (Miscellaneous Cause No. 0094 of 2019)
  • Nampogo Robert and Another v Attorney General (Constitutional Petition No. 43 of 2012)
  • Haruna Nsereko Isabirye v Attorney General and Another (Miscellaneous Application No. 12 of 2018)
  • Nampongo Robert and Tumwesigye Moses v Attorney General (Constitutional Petition No. 43 of 2012)
  • Goodman Agencies Ltd and 3 Others v Attorney General and Treasury Officer of Accounts (Miscellaneous Application No. 126 of 2008)
  • Intex Construction Ltd v Attorney General and Another (Miscellaneous Application No. 737 of 2013)

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Lukwago v Attorney General (Miscellaneous Cause 28 of 2020) [2023] UGHCCD 144 (22 February 2023)
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.