Wakilii

Stephen Rwehuta & 1097 Others v Attorney General & Anor (Miscellaneous Application 358 of 2020)

High Court · [2024] UGHCCD 41 · 2024 Application Dismissed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Application for mandamus to compel payment of taxed costs arising from a prior mandamus order
Decision
Application for mandamus dismissed; parties to await resolution of pending Court of Appeal matters

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

Application for mandamus to compel payment of taxed advocate costs dismissed where a Court of Appeal stay of execution was in force concerning related matters. The Court held that issuing mandamus would constitute execution of orders stayed by the appellate court and would be illegal. Further, an unresolved controversy surrounded the representation of the judgment creditors by multiple law firms, making it uncertain whether the applicant firm was duly instructed or entitled to the full taxed costs.

Outcome

Application for mandamus dismissed; parties to await resolution of pending Court of Appeal matters

Facts

Applicants, through M/s Mushabe, Munungu & Co. Advocates, sought mandamus to compel payment of UGX 203,688,144 in taxed costs. The costs arose from the advocates' representation in Miscellaneous Cause No. 318 of 2016, which itself arose from earlier proceedings (HCCS No. 207 of 1993 and M.A. No. 192 of 2000) where 1,097 claimants were awarded compensation. On 19 September 2018, the advocates extracted a Certificate of Order against Government for the taxed costs. Despite demand, the respondents did not pay. Two of the named applicants, Sabiiti Jackson and Stephen Rwehuta, opposed the application on grounds that a Court of Appeal stay of execution (Civil Application No. 70 of 2020) was in force concerning representation disputes among multiple law firms. The respondents similarly opposed, stating that different law firms had been instructed by different groups of beneficiaries at different stages and that a pending appeal raised issues affecting the instant application.

Issues

  1. Whether this is a proper case for issuance of an order of Mandamus.
  2. What are the available remedies.

Orders

  • Application dismissed.
  • Each party to bear their own costs of the application.

Rules and key headnotes

Mandamus — Jurisdiction and Discretion — Effect of Pending Appeal and Stay of Execution
Where a Court of Appeal has issued a stay of execution concerning orders directly related to the matters from which a mandamus application arises, it is illegal for the High Court to grant mandamus as doing so would constitute execution of stayed orders.
Mandamus — Conditions for Grant — Certainty of Right
An order of mandamus will not issue where there is an unresolved controversy as to whether the applicant was duly instructed or entitled to the relief claimed, even where a certificate of order has been extracted.
Costs — Party-to-Party Bills — Proper Parties
A party-to-party bill of costs is properly brought in the name of the judgment creditor against the judgment debtor, not in the name of the advocate alone. An advocate enforcing a party-to-party bill must sue through the name of the judgment creditors.
Locus Standi — Applicants Named Without Instructions
Where an applicant is named as a party to an application without his instructions and subsequently opposes that application, his locus standi to oppose cannot be questioned, as he has a personal right to object to proceedings brought in his name without authority.
Mandamus — Criteria for Grant
For mandamus to issue, the applicant must establish: (a) a clear right and a corresponding duty on the respondent's part; (b) that a specific act required by law has been omitted by the officer; and (c) lack of any alternative remedy, or that the alternative is inconvenient, less beneficial, or ineffective.

Legislation cited (9)

Cases cited (5)

  • Peter Jogo Tabu v Peter Langi (Civil Application No. 23 of 2017)
  • Amos Bakeine and Others v Attorney General & Uganda Wild Life Authority (Civil Application No. 524 of 2010)
  • Shah v Attorney General (Miscellaneous Cause No. 31 of 1969)
  • Combined Services Ltd v Attorney General & Anor (Miscellaneous Application No. 648 of 2015)
  • Goodman Agencies Ltd & 3 Others v Attorney General & Treasury Officer of Accounts (Miscellaneous Application No. 126 of 2008)

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Stephen Rwehuta & 1097 Others v Attorney General & Anor (Miscellaneous Application 358 of 2020) [2024] UGHCCD 41 (15 March 2024)
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.