Wakilii

Mulooki v Attorney General and 2 Others (Misc Cause 61 of 2020)

High Court · [2023] UGHCCD 139 · 2023 Application Dismissed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Application for judicial review seeking writ of mandamus to enforce compensation order made in criminal proceedings
Decision
Application for writ of mandamus dismissed; underlying compensation order set aside as a nullity

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

Application for writ of mandamus dismissed. The court held that it cannot issue a writ of mandamus to enforce a compensation order made in breach of natural justice. The trial judge in the underlying criminal case ordered the State to pay UGX 200,000,000 compensation to a convicted person for torture in prison custody without giving the State an opportunity to be heard. This violated principles of natural justice and rendered the compensation order a nullity. Section 33 of the Judicature Act should only be invoked where matters have been properly brought before the court in accordance with natural justice.

Outcome

Application for writ of mandamus dismissed; underlying compensation order set aside as a nullity

Facts

The applicant was convicted of aggravated defilement in Criminal Session Case No. 093 of 2017 and sentenced to 4 years 6 months imprisonment (time served on remand). At the plea hearing, he appeared on stretchers with a broken backbone. He informed the trial judge he had been beaten by a prison warden while in custody at Kitalya Government Prison. Without hearing from the State, the trial judge ordered the State to pay the applicant UGX 200,000,000 compensation for torture suffered in custody, to provide medical treatment, and directed the Attorney General to arrange payment. The State did not pay. The applicant applied for a writ of mandamus to compel payment. The Attorney General opposed, arguing the compensation order was made without affording the State a fair hearing.

Issues

  1. Whether the court should issue a writ of mandamus to compel the respondents to pay compensation ordered in criminal proceedings.
  2. Whether the compensation order made by the trial judge was valid where the State was not given an opportunity to be heard before the order was made.

Orders

  • Application dismissed.
  • All orders made by the trial judge on 8 June 2017 set aside.
  • Miscellaneous Cause No. 55 of 2022 discontinued as it is similar to this application.
  • Each party to bear their own costs of the applications.

Rules and key headnotes

Judicial Review — Mandamus — Preconditions for Grant — Requirement of Valid Underlying Order
A court cannot issue a writ of mandamus to enforce an order that is a nullity. Where the underlying order was made in breach of natural justice, it lacks legal effect and cannot form the basis for mandamus relief.
Administrative Law — Natural Justice — Audi Alteram Partem — Right to Be Heard
It is a requirement of law that a court or tribunal's decision must be made in accordance with principles of natural justice and good faith. The court must exhibit fairness to all parties in a case. Where a party is condemned without being given an opportunity to be heard, the decision is made in breach of natural justice and is a nullity.
Criminal Law & Procedure — Compensation Orders — Procedural Requirements — Right to Be Heard
Where a court proposes to make a compensation order against a party in criminal proceedings, that party must be given an opportunity to be heard. A convicted person would not ordinarily expect that an order for compensation would necessarily follow conviction. The party to be ordered to pay compensation should be called upon to show cause why an order should not be made. To do otherwise would be a breach of natural justice and would amount to a person being condemned without a hearing.
Civil Procedure — Judicature Act Section 33 — Scope of Application — Requirement That Matters Be Properly Brought Before Court
Section 33 of the Judicature Act should only be invoked by the High Court where any of the parties to a cause or matter is entitled to remedies in respect of any legal or equitable claim properly brought before it. The matters must have been properly brought before the court before a remedy is granted by the High Court.
Administrative Law — Jurisdiction — Excess of Jurisdiction — Departure from Natural Justice
A tribunal may step outside its jurisdiction where, while engaged on a proper inquiry, it departs from the rules of natural justice or asks itself the wrong questions or takes into account matters which it was not directed to take into account. Thereby it would turn its inquiry into something not directed by Parliament and fail to make the inquiry which Parliament did direct. Any of these things would cause its purported decision to be a nullity.

Legislation cited (10)

Cases cited (3)

  • Intex Construction Ltd v Attorney General and Another (High Court Miscellaneous Cause No. 737 of 2013)
  • Haining and Others v Republic [1972] EA 133
  • Anisminic v Foreign Compensation Commission [1969] 2 AC 147

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Mulooki v Attorney General and 2 Others (Misc Cause 61 of 2020) [2023] UGHCCD 139 (16 May 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.