Wakilii

Mwebeiiha Amatos v Attorney General and Others [2026] UGHCLD 172

High Court · 2026 Application Dismissed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Application by notice of motion to enforce a default clause in a court-endorsed compromise agreement arising from an earlier civil suit and decree
Decision
Application to enforce the default clause in the compromise agreement dismissed; no costs order

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 court held that a compromise agreement endorsed by court after judgment replaces the decree and is enforceable as a judgment, so the applicable limitation period is twelve years under s.35 of the Civil Procedure Act, not the three-year period for contract claims against Government under s.3 of the Civil Procedure and Limitation (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act. Procedural affidavits supporting a notice of motion attract no stamp duty, so the preliminary objection failed. Although the Government breached the compromise by failing to pay the agreed sum by January 2020, the applicant, having accepted substantial late payments without protest and delayed five years, impliedly waived and could not enforce the default clause. Application dismissed, each party bearing own costs.

Outcome

Application to enforce the default clause in the compromise agreement dismissed; no costs order

Facts

Judgment and decree were entered for the applicant against the Attorney General in High Court Civil Suit No. 382 of 2015 (founded on detinue and trespass), awarding UGX 20,212,000,000 with 25% interest per annum and costs. On 3 November 2016 the parties executed a compromise agreement, endorsed by court, under which the applicant waived UGX 22,400,000,000 in interest, leaving UGX 53,773,538,788 payable by end of January 2020. The compromise provided that on default the full sum and interest would become due and execution would follow immediately. By January 2020 the Government had paid only UGX 16,974,551,384. The applicant did not commence execution but continued receiving payments without protest until November 2020, receiving a further UGX 31,540,607,404 outside the stipulated period, bringing total payments to UGX 48,515,158,788, with taxed costs also paid. In December 2024 the Government asserted the debt was extinguished. In 2025 the applicant applied to enforce the default clause, claiming UGX 71,501,769,573 outstanding as at 6 July 2025. The Government contended there was no breach, that the claim was time-barred, and that the supporting affidavits sworn abroad were defective for non-payment of stamp duty.

Issues

  1. Whether the affidavits in support of the application were fatally defective for non-payment of stamp duty under the Stamp Duty Act.
  2. Whether the application was barred by limitation.
  3. Whether the respondents were in breach of the compromise agreement and, if so, whether the applicant could enforce the default clause in that agreement.

Orders

  • Preliminary objection on non-payment of stamp duty overruled.
  • Application held not barred by limitation.
  • Application dismissed.
  • Each party to meet their own costs of the application.

Rules and key headnotes

Civil Procedure — Affidavits — Stamp Duty — Procedural Affidavits Supporting a Notice of Motion
Stamp duty is chargeable only on affidavits that confer a right or liability on a party; an affidavit sworn in support of a notice of motion is a procedural pleading and is not chargeable with stamp duty, even where sworn outside Uganda.
Civil Procedure — Compromise Agreements — Court-Endorsed Compromise Has the Force of a Decree
Where, after judgment and extraction of a decree, parties voluntarily adjust the decree by a compromise agreement which the court endorses, that compromise replaces the judgment and takes effect as a judgment or decree of the court rather than as an independent contract.
Civil Procedure — Limitation — Enforcement of Decrees Against Government — Twelve-Year Period
An application to enforce a court-endorsed compromise is an application to enforce a court decision and is governed by the twelve-year limitation period under section 35 of the Civil Procedure Act, not the three-year period for actions founded on contract against the Government under section 3 of the Civil Procedure and Limitation (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act.
Contract Law — Default Clauses — Waiver by Conduct — Acceptance of Late Performance Without Protest
A party who, following default, continues to accept substantial late payments without objection or protest impliedly waives the right to invoke a default clause accelerating the whole sum, and cannot later insist on strict enforcement of that clause.
Contract Law — Equitable Relief — Delay and Acquiescence — Equity Aids the Vigilant
Unreasonable delay in acting upon a breach, coupled with acquiescence in the defaulting party's late performance, disentitles the innocent party to enforcement relief, since equity aids the vigilant and not the indolent and delay defeats equity.

Legislation cited (7)

Cases cited (1)

  • Uganda Taxi Operators and Drivers Association (UTODA) v Kampala Capital City Authority and Another (Miscellaneous Application No. 137 of 2011)

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Mwebeiiha Amatos v Attorney General and Others [2026] UGHCLD 172 (30 April 2026)
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.