Wakilii

Nabuwati & 2 Ors v The Secretary to the Treasury & Anor (Miscellaneous Application No. 2613 of 2016)

High Court · [2017] UGHCEBD 14 · 2017 Application Granted AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Application for order of mandamus arising from High Court judgment in Civil Suit No. 136 of 2012
Decision
Writ of mandamus issued compelling government to pay the decretal sum

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

An order of mandamus will issue to compel government to pay a decretal sum where a Certificate of Order against Government has been issued, the Minister of Justice has directed payment, but the government officer has failed to comply. The applicants established a clear legal right to payment under the decree, a corresponding duty on the respondents, and the absence of alternative remedies. The court declined to award additional damages not decreed in the original judgment, as mandamus cannot enforce doubtful rights.

Outcome

Writ of mandamus issued compelling government to pay the decretal sum

Facts

The Applicants obtained judgment against the Attorney General in Civil Suit No. 136 of 2012 on 23 March 2016 for UGX 2,720,818,100 with 12% interest per annum from judgment until payment in full, plus costs. A decree was extracted and a Certificate of Order against Government was issued on 8 June 2016 indicating the principal sum plus accrued interest of UGX 320,498,172 and fixed costs of UGX 285,776,360. The Minister of Justice directed payment by letter dated 14 June 2016. Despite the ministerial directive, the Respondents failed to pay the amounts due. The Applicants applied for mandamus to compel payment. The Respondents were served but did not appear or file an affidavit in reply, and the hearing proceeded ex parte.

Issues

  1. Whether this is a proper case for the issue of an order of mandamus to compel the Respondents to pay money due under a Certificate of Order against Government.

Orders

  • Application allowed.
  • Writ of mandamus to issue to compel the Respondents to perform their statutory duty to pay the Applicants the sums due and owing as per the decree and Certificate of Order against Government.
  • Taxed costs of this application granted to the Applicants.

Rules and key headnotes

Mandamus — Requirements for Issuance
To obtain a writ of mandamus, an applicant must establish: (i) a clear legal right and a corresponding duty in the respondent; (ii) that some specific act or thing that the law requires the particular officer to do has been omitted; (iii) lack of any alternative remedy, or that the alternative remedy is inconvenient, less beneficial, less effective, or totally ineffective.
Mandamus — Duty Must Be Indisputable
The duty to perform an act must be indisputable and plainly defined, as mandamus will not issue to enforce doubtful rights.
Enforcement Against Government — Certificate of Order Against Government
A decree or order of payment made against Government becomes a statutory duty for the government officer concerned to perform. Payments decreed against Government must be made by the Attorney General through the Treasury Officer of Accounts.
Mandamus Against Government — Availability Where Ministerial Directive Ignored
Where a Certificate of Order against Government has been issued, the Minister of Justice has directed payment, but the government officer has failed to comply, mandamus will issue to compel payment as there is no viable alternative remedy available to judgment creditors against the state.
Mandamus — Scope of Relief — Cannot Enforce Amounts Not Decreed
Mandamus cannot issue to enforce doubtful or disputed rights. Where an applicant seeks additional damages not decreed by the court in the original judgment, such relief cannot be granted by way of mandamus as it would raise questions and amount to enforcement of a claim not established by decree.

Legislation cited (7)

Cases cited (3)

  • Benon Turyamureeba and 132 Others v Attorney General and Treasury Officer of Accounts (Miscellaneous Application No. 440 of 2005)
  • Southern Range Nyanza Ltd v Attorney General and the Treasury Officer of Accounts (Miscellaneous Application No. 2157 of 2016)
  • Nampogo Robert and Another v Attorney General (HCCMA No. 0048 of 2009)

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Nabuwati & 2 Ors v The Secretary to the Treasury & Anor (Miscellaneous Application No. 2613 of 2016) [2017] UGHCEBD 14 (23 March 2017)
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.