Wakilii

Ongiera & 39 Others v Attorney General & Another (MISCELLANEOUS CAUSE NO. 288 OF 2018)

High Court · [2019] UGHCCD 266 · 2019 Application Granted AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Application for mandamus to enforce Equal Opportunities Commission award
Decision
Order of mandamus issued compelling government to pay the judgment sum awarded by the Equal Opportunities Commission

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 High Court granted mandamus directing the Attorney General and Secretary to the Treasury to pay UGX 4,931,269,000 awarded by the Equal Opportunities Commission. The court held that where judgment creditors have obtained and served a certificate of order under the Government Proceedings Act, and government has not paid despite demand and no appeal is pending, mandamus is the appropriate remedy to compel performance of the statutory duty to satisfy the order.

Outcome

Order of mandamus issued compelling government to pay the judgment sum awarded by the Equal Opportunities Commission

Facts

The Applicants lost properties in the West Nile region between 1986 and 1989 at the hands of the National Resistance Army. Despite government compensating similar victims in other regions, the Applicants received no compensation. They filed a complaint with the Equal Opportunities Commission (EOC/NR/034/2016) which awarded them UGX 4,931,269,000 in damages on 23 March 2018. The Applicants obtained a certificate of order and served it on the Attorney General on 20 December 2018. Despite demands, government refused to pay and filed no appeal against the Commission's decision. The Applicants then applied to the High Court for mandamus to compel payment.

Issues

  1. Whether this court should grant an order of mandamus compelling the Respondents to pay the sum awarded by the Equal Opportunities Commission.
  2. Whether the Applicants have demonstrated a clear legal right to the relief sought and satisfied the requirements for mandamus.

Orders

  • Application allowed.
  • Order of mandamus issued directing the Respondents to pay the Applicants the sum of UGX 4,931,269,000 accruing from complaint No. EOC/NR/034/2016 before the Equal Opportunities Commission.
  • Costs of this application awarded to the Applicants.

Rules and key headnotes

Mandamus — Requirements for Granting — Clear Legal Right and Public Duty
Before mandamus can be granted, the applicant must show a clear legal right to have the thing sought done, and done in the manner and by the person sought to be coerced. The duty whose performance is sought must be actually due and incumbent upon that person or body, purely statutory in nature, plainly imposed by operation of law, and concerning which the person possesses no discretionary powers. There must also be a demand and refusal to perform the act.
Government Proceedings Act — Execution Against Government — Certificate of Order
Under section 19 of the Government Proceedings Act, execution against government is commenced by obtaining a certificate of order which is then served on the Attorney General and the relevant secretary to the treasury. Upon service, the treasury officer or appropriate government accounting officer shall pay the amount stated in the certificate together with any interest lawfully due, unless the court directs that payment be suspended pending appeal or otherwise.
Mandamus — Enforcement of Equal Opportunities Commission Awards Against Government
Where judgment creditors have obtained an award from the Equal Opportunities Commission, obtained and served a certificate of order on the Attorney General in accordance with the Government Proceedings Act, and government has not paid despite demand and no appeal is pending, it is just and convenient to grant mandamus compelling government to satisfy the order. The statutory duty to pay under section 19(3) of the Government Proceedings Act is non-discretionary once a certificate of order is properly served.
Mandamus — Availability of Remedy — No Alternative Remedy
Mandamus ordinarily issues in situations where the applicant has no alternative remedy to compel the performance of a public duty.

Legislation cited (4)

Cases cited (3)

  • Stream Aviation Ltd v Civil Aviation Authority (Miscellaneous Cause No. 175 of 2008)
  • Semwo Construction Company v Rukungiri District Local Government (Miscellaneous Cause No. 30 of 2010)
  • Shah v Attorney General (No. 3) [1970] EA 543

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Ongiera & 39 Others v Attorney General & Another (MISCELLANEOUS CAUSE NO. 288 OF 2018) [2019] UGHCCD 266 (10 May 2019)
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.