Wakilii

Mukasa v Attorney General & Another (MISCELLANEOUS CAUSE NO. 94 OF 2019)

High Court · [2020] UGHCCD 110 · 2020 Application Granted AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Application for mandamus to compel payment of judgment debt arising from Civil Appeal No. 28 of 2015
Decision
Order of mandamus granted compelling respondents to pay judgment debt of UGX 31,305,600

Observed later treatment

Cited — treatment unverified cited in 1 (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 1 time with no adverse treatment recorded; not yet tested on the merits. 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

The High Court granted an order of mandamus compelling the Attorney General and the Treasury Officer to pay a judgment debt of UGX 31,305,600 arising from Civil Appeal No. 28 of 2015. The court held that the applicant had satisfied all legal requirements for mandamus by demonstrating: (1) a right specified in a court decree; (2) extraction and service of a certificate of order against Government; and (3) the respondents' refusal to honour the certificate despite formal demands. The application succeeded ex parte as the respondents failed to file a reply or appear.

Outcome

Order of mandamus granted compelling respondents to pay judgment debt of UGX 31,305,600

Facts

The applicant was a judgment creditor in Civil Appeal No. 28 of 2015 against the Attorney General. He extracted a certificate of order against Government for UGX 31,305,600 and served it on the Attorney General on 4 December 2018 together with a formal demand for payment. On 8 February 2019, the applicant issued a further demand for payment. The respondents acknowledged receipt of service but deliberately refused to pay the judgment debt. The respondents were served with hearing notices several times but neither filed a reply nor appeared in court to defend the application. The matter proceeded ex parte.

Issues

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

Orders

  • An order of mandamus doth issue compelling the Respondents to pay the Applicant the amount of UGX 31,305,600 to satisfy a decree and certificate of order in Civil Appeal No. 28 of 2015.
  • The Applicant is awarded costs of this application.

Rules and key headnotes

Judicial Review — Mandamus — Requirements for Grant
An applicant for an order of mandamus must demonstrate that: (1) they have a right specified in a decree of court; (2) a certificate of order against Government has been extracted and duly served on the respondents; and (3) the respondents have refused to honour the certificate of order by refusing to pay the amount decreed.
Service of Process — Certificate of Order Against Government
A copy of a certificate of order may be served by the person in whose favour the order is made upon the Attorney General, who represents Government in civil proceedings by or against Government.
Ex Parte Proceedings — Uncontested Affidavits
Where facts are sworn to in an affidavit and are not denied or rebutted by the opposite party, the presumption is that they are accepted as the truth.

Legislation cited (6)

Cases cited (5)

  • Re An Application by Bukoba Gymkhana Club (1963) 478 (T)
  • R. vs. Poplar Metropolitan Borough Council, ex parte LCC (No.2) [1992] 1 KB 95
  • Intex Construction Ltd v Attorney General and Another (High Court Miscellaneous Cause No. 737 of 2013)
  • Massa vs. Achen [1978] HCB 297
  • Domaro Behangana and Another v Attorney General (Constitutional Petition No. 53 of 2010)

Cases citing this judgment (1)

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.

Mukasa v Attorney General & Another (MISCELLANEOUS CAUSE NO. 94 OF 2019) [2020] UGHCCD 110 (15 May 2020)
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.