Makaru v Attorney General & Anor (Miscellaneous Application No. 1288 of 2016)
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
The High Court granted mandamus to compel the Treasury Officer of Accounts to pay a decretal sum to a judgment creditor where the Attorney General failed to satisfy a certificate of order against Government issued under the Government Proceedings Act s.19. The applicant established a clear legal right to payment, the respondents had a corresponding statutory duty to pay, and the applicant had no effective alternative remedy after attempted attachment was declared illegal.
Outcome
Writ of mandamus issued compelling Treasury to perform statutory duty to pay decree holder
Facts
The applicant obtained judgment against the Government of Uganda in Civil Suit No. 152 of 2005 on 12 November 2013. A certificate of order against Government was extracted on 12 June 2014 requiring payment of UGX 64,955,200 (decretal sum) and UGX 12,268,564 (taxed costs). The certificate was served on the Attorney General on 26 June 2014. Despite service and acknowledgement of receipt, the Government failed to pay. The applicant attempted to attach Government property, but the attachment was opposed as illegal. The Attorney General made promises to pay but failed to honour them. After exhausting other remedies and receiving no payment, the applicant filed this application seeking mandamus to compel payment.
Issues
- Whether this is a proper case for the issue of the order of mandamus
Orders
- The writ of mandamus to issue to compel the Treasury Officer of Accounts / Secretary to Treasury to perform his statutory duty and pay the Applicant the decretal sum due and owing to him together with the duly taxed costs.
- Continued failure and or refusal to pay the Applicant the moneys due and owing to him amounts to contempt of court orders.
- Application allowed with costs to the Applicant.
Rules and key headnotes
Legislation cited (5)
Cases cited (1)
- Nampogo Robert and Another v Attorney General (HCCS CV MC No. 0048 of 2009)
Full judgment
The original judgment as reported. Read the original PDF before relying on any passage.