Wakilii

Nambale Enterprises Limited v Attorney General (Civil Suit No. 58 of 2017)

High Court · [2017] UGCOMMC 258 · 2017 Application Dismissed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Application for default judgment and formal proof following defendant's failure to file defence
Decision
Suit dismissed due to procedural irregularity in entering default judgment

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 Section 25(2)(b) of the Government Proceedings Act and Rule 6 of the Civil Procedure (Government Proceedings) Rules requiring leave of court before entering default judgment against Government remain binding law, as they protect Government's constitutional right to a fair hearing under Article 28 without restricting Government liability or depriving plaintiffs of fundamental rights. The default judgment was unlawfully entered without the required application for leave. Suit dismissed.

Outcome

Suit dismissed due to procedural irregularity in entering default judgment

Facts

The plaintiff entered into a government procurement framework contract on 7 November 2012 with the Ministry of Education for construction of classrooms and latrines at Wabwala Secondary School, Manafwa District, for UGX 314,711,400 subject to variations. The contract was later varied to include extra works costing UGX 9,295,100. The plaintiff claims it fully executed the contract and obtained interim certificates between July 2013 and July 2014. The defendant paid only part of the amount due, leaving UGX 81,337,139 unpaid. The plaintiff filed suit on 27 January 2017. Summons for defence were issued on 30 January 2017 requiring filing within 15 days. The defendant was served on 3 February 2017 but filed no defence. The plaintiff obtained default judgment and the matter was set down for formal proof and assessment of damages.

Issues

  1. Whether the court rightly entered a default judgment against the Attorney General without leave of court as required by Section 25(2)(b) of the Government Proceedings Act and Rule 6 of the Civil Procedure (Government Proceedings) Rules.
  2. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to damages for alleged breach of contract and if so, quantum.
  3. What remedies are available to the parties.

Orders

  • Default judgment entered against the Government was found to have been unlawfully entered.
  • Issue 1 found in the negative.
  • Suit for formal proof and assessment of damages dismissed.
  • No order on costs.

Rules and key headnotes

Civil Procedure — Default Judgment Against Government — Requirement for Leave of Court
Section 25(2)(b) of the Government Proceedings Act and Rule 6 of the Civil Procedure (Government Proceedings) Rules require that judgment shall not be entered against the Government in default of appearance or pleading without leave of court obtained on application of which notice has been given to Government, and this requirement remains binding law notwithstanding the equality provision in the 1995 Constitution.
Constitutional Law — Fundamental Rights — Right to Fair Hearing — Government
The requirement for leave of court before entering default judgment against Government protects Government's right to a fair hearing under Article 28 of the Constitution and does not deprive plaintiffs of their fundamental rights or restrict Government from liability for its actions.
Administrative Law — Government Proceedings — Procedural Protections
The application for leave of court before entering default judgment against Government provides Government with an opportunity to explain why default judgment should not be entered, which is particularly pertinent given that the Attorney General represents all government departments and ministries and may experience delays in conducting consultations and gathering evidence.
Civil Procedure — Interpretation of Statutes — Modification of Unjust Laws
While courts are empowered under Article 273 of the Constitution to modify existing unjust laws without referring the matter to the Constitutional Court, this power does not extend to provisions which protect fundamental rights such as the right to a fair hearing and which do not restrict liability or deprive parties of constitutional protections.

Legislation cited (12)

Cases cited (18)

  • Domaro Behangana and Another v Attorney General (Constitutional Petition No. 53 of 2010)
  • Massa v Achen [1978] HCB 279
  • Auto Garage and Others v Motokov (No. 3) [1971] 1 EA 514
  • Nagawa Agnes and Another v Segawa Samuel and 8 Others (High Court Civil Suit No. 27 of 2012)
  • Sam Akankwatsa v Attorney General (Miscellaneous Application No. 344 of 2013)
  • Kabandize and 20 Others v Kampala Capital City Authority (Civil Appeal No. 28 of 2011)
  • Attorney General v Osotraco Ltd (Civil Appeal No. 34 of 2002)
  • Dr James Rwanyarare and Others v Attorney General (Constitutional Application No. 6 of 2002)
  • Hajji Mustafa Ndigejerawa v Equator Growers (Civil Appeal No. 7 of 1995)
  • Departed Asians Property Custodian Board v Issa Bukenya (Civil Suit No. 26 of 1992)
  • Mugwanya Patrick v Attorney General (Civil Suit No. 154 of 2009)
  • Hon Winfred Masiko and 3 Others v Director of Public Prosecutions and 2 Others (Miscellaneous Application No. 15 of 2009)
  • Kuluo Joseph Andrew and 2 Others v Attorney General and 6 Others (Miscellaneous Cause No. 106 of 2010)
  • Ssebudde Joseph v Inspector General of Government (Miscellaneous Cause No. 32 of 2010)
  • Across Africa Clearing and Forwarding Co Ltd v Uganda Revenue Authority and Another (Miscellaneous Cause No. 3 of 2012)
  • Frederick Ssempebwa v Attorney General (Constitutional Petition No. 1 of 1986)
  • Bank of Uganda v Betty Tinkamanyire (Civil Appeal No. 12 of 2007)
  • Impressa Infortunato Federici v Irene Nabwire (Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 3 of 2000)

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Nambale Enterprises Limited v Attorney General (Civil Suit No. 58 of 2017) [2017] UGCommC 258 (16 May 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.