Wakilii

Makaru v Attorney General & Anor (Miscellaneous Application No. 1288 of 2016)

High Court · [2016] UGHCEBD 23 · 2016 Application Granted AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Application for mandamus arising from execution proceedings in Civil Suit No. 152 of 2005, seeking to compel Government payment of a decretal sum
Decision
Writ of mandamus issued compelling Government payment; continued non-payment constitutes contempt

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 payment where the applicant established a clear legal right under a judgment and decree, a certificate of order against Government was duly issued and served on the Attorney General, the Government had a corresponding statutory duty to pay under section 19 of the Government Proceedings Act, and the Government failed to perform that duty despite promises. The applicant demonstrated no effective alternative remedy existed. Application allowed.

Outcome

Writ of mandamus issued compelling Government payment; continued non-payment constitutes contempt

Facts

The applicant obtained judgment against the Government of Uganda in Civil Suit No. 152 of 2005 on 12 November 2013. A certificate of taxation was issued for costs. On 12 June 2014, a certificate of order against Government was extracted for payment of UGX 64,955,200 being the decretal sum and costs of UGX 12,268,564. The certificate was served on the Attorney General on 26 June 2014 with receipt acknowledged. Despite service and the statutory duty to pay under section 19 of the Government Proceedings Act, the Government did not pay. The applicant attempted to attach Government property but this was opposed as illegal. Promises to pay were made but not fulfilled. Counsel for the applicant wrote seeking settlement but received no payment, prompting this application for mandamus filed on 17 June 2016. The Attorney General did not oppose the application.

Issues

  1. Whether this is a proper case for the issue of an order of mandamus

Orders

  • Application allowed.
  • 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.
  • Costs to the Applicant.

Rules and key headnotes

Mandamus — Requirements for Issuance
To obtain a writ of mandamus, an applicant must establish: (1) a clear legal right and a corresponding duty in the respondent; (2) that some specific act or thing which the law requires that particular officer to do has been omitted to be done; (3) lack of any alternative remedy, or (4) that the alternative remedy exists but is inconvenient, less beneficial, less effective or totally ineffective.
Mandamus — Clear and Indisputable Duty
Mandamus will not issue to enforce doubtful rights. The duty to perform an act must be indisputable and plainly defined.
Government Proceedings — Satisfaction of Orders
Under section 19 of the Government Proceedings Act, where a certificate of order against Government is issued and served upon the Attorney General, a decree or order of payment made against Government becomes a statutory duty for the Government officer concerned to perform.
Execution — Enforcement Against Government
Where a judgment creditor has attempted to attach Government property to recover a decretal sum and the attachment was declared illegal, and the Government has failed to pay despite issuance and service of a certificate of order against Government, the judgment creditor has no effective alternative remedy and may properly seek mandamus to compel payment.

Legislation cited (8)

Cases cited (1)

  • Nampogo Robert and Another v Attorney General (Miscellaneous Cause No. 0048 of 2009)

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Makaru v Attorney General & Anor (Miscellaneous Application No. 1288 of 2016) [2016] UGHCEBD 23 (4 November 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.