Specioza Kalungi and Others v Attorney General (Civil Appeal No. 76 of 2011)
Observed later treatment
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 of Appeal allowed the appeal, holding that the appellants, proved creditors of a liquidated public enterprise (UTC 1975 Ltd) divested under the PERD Act, had a legitimate cause of action against the Attorney General. The plaint pleaded material facts disclosing a cause of action and was distinguishable from Priamit and Mugenyi. An ex gratia payment does not extinguish a debt. Where divestiture proceeds were insufficient, the Minister of Finance was obliged to seek budgetary support to pay creditors; divestiture is not complete until all proved creditors are paid. The court ordered the Minister to make a budgetary allocation to pay the appellants' decretal amounts with 8% interest.
Outcome
Appeal allowed; Minister of Finance ordered to make budgetary allocation to pay appellants' proved claims with 8% interest
Facts
The appellants were creditors of Uganda Transport Company (1975) Ltd, a public enterprise the government decided to divest by liquidation under the Public Enterprise Reform and Divestiture (PERD) Act. F. Mungereza and George Egaddu were appointed joint liquidators. The liquidators' report listed the appellants as proved creditors. Because the assets realised from liquidation were insufficient, some appellants were paid 10%, others 20% as ex gratia payments, and others were not paid at all. The liquidators requested the PERD Secretariat and Minister of Finance to remit funds to pay the proven claims, but no money was made available. The appellants sued the Attorney General seeking declarations that the respondent should pay their claims from the divestiture account, an order directing a budgetary contribution, aggravated damages, interest and costs. At trial the respondent raised a preliminary objection that the claim was time barred and fully settled ex gratia. The trial judge dismissed the suit, holding the plaint disclosed no cause of action and that the Minister had discretionary power whether to pay creditors.
Issues
- Whether the trial judge rightly rejected the appellants' claim by relying on Priamit Enterprises v Attorney General and Mugenyi & Company Advocates v Attorney General.
- Whether the trial judge rightfully interpreted the provisions of the PERD Acts.
- What remedies are available to the appellants.
Orders
- Appeal allowed.
- The Minister of Finance to make a budgetary allocation to pay all appellants their decretal amount as originally proved and found due by the liquidators, with interest of 8% from the time the money was due until payment in full.
- Counsel for the appellants given 15 days from the date of delivery of judgment to compute the total amount due with interest and submit it to the respondent for approval to the Minister of Finance for compliance.
- Respondent to pay costs of the appeal in the Court of Appeal and in the court below.
Rules and key headnotes
Legislation cited (7)
- Public Enterprises Reform and Divestiture (Amendment) Act s.2
- PERD Statute 1993 s.23
- PERD Statute 1993 s.25
- PERD Act 2000 s.19
- PERD Act 2000 s.20
- PERD Act 2000 s.21
- PERD Statute 1995 s.40
Cases cited (4)
- Priamit Enterprises v Attorney General (Civil Appeal No. 10 of 2001)
- Mugenyi & Company Advocates v Attorney General (Civil Appeal No. 45 of 1995)
- Unidron & 25 Others v Attorney General (HCCS No. 04 of 2007)
- Auto Garage and Others vs. Motokov (1971)
Cases citing this judgment (1)
How later Ugandan judgments in the Wakilii corpus have cited this case. Treatment labels come from Sequitur — Uganda’s citator — each backed by a verbatim span from the citing judgment, and are not an assertion that this case is, or is not, good law.
Full judgment
The original judgment as reported. Read the original PDF before relying on any passage.