Unidron Ltd & Ors v Attorney General (Civil Suit No. 4 of 2007)

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.

Holding

The court held that where public enterprises were divested under the PERD Statute and liquidation proceeds were insufficient to pay proved creditors, Government had a duty through the Ministry of Finance to seek budgetary support to pay the creditors. Although the PERD Statute contained no express provision for shortfalls, the court applied the principle from Specioza Kalungi that it was incumbent on the Minister of Finance to find budgetary support. The court rejected the defendant's argument that ex-gratia payments extinguished the debt, holding such payments did not relieve Government of its obligation. Claims were ordered paid with interest from the date proved in liquidation.

Outcome

Judgment entered for plaintiffs as proved creditors; defendant ordered to make budgetary allocation to pay proved claims with interest

Facts

Twenty-four plaintiffs were proved creditors of Uganda General Merchandise Limited and Uganda Transport Company Limited, public enterprises divested and liquidated under the Public Enterprises Reform and Divesture Act 1993. The liquidators' statements of account listed the plaintiffs as creditors but indicated that liquidation proceeds were insufficient to pay creditors. Plaintiffs separately instituted civil suits 4 and 616 of 2007 claiming amounts proved in liquidation plus interest, asserting Government had a statutory duty to pay under sections 2 and 34 of the PERD Statute and section 21 of the PERD (Amendment) Statute 2000. The suits were consolidated due to similarity of claims. Government contended it had no legal duty to pay from the Divesture Account where no funds from the specific liquidations had been deposited, that claims were only payable in liquidation, and that it had made ex-gratia payments totalling 20% in full settlement. Plaintiffs argued the PERD Statute and Development Credit Agreement required Government to seek budgetary support where liquidation proceeds were insufficient.

Issues

1. Whether or not the suit was filed with the authority of the 1st, 10th, 13th, 15th, 16th, 18th, 19th, 22nd and 23rd plaintiffs.
2. Whether the Minister of Finance and the Divesture and Reform Implementation Committee have a statutory duty to pay the plaintiffs' claims under the PERD Act.
3. Whether the Development Credit Agreement was incorporated by reference into the PERD Act.
4. Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to the prayers in the plaint.

Orders

• Suit against the defendant succeeds.
• Defendant shall make a budgetary allocation to pay the plaintiffs their proved claims.
• Interest of 12% per annum awarded from the date when claims were proved in liquidation till payment in full.
• Each plaintiff shall individually or through agents/representatives present proved amounts to defendant for approval within 60 days from date of judgment.
• Costs of the suit awarded to the plaintiffs.
• Claim for punitive damages disallowed.
• Claim for aggravated damages disallowed.
• Claim for general damages disallowed.

Rules and key headnotes

Legislation cited (8)

• Public Enterprises Reform and Divesture Act 1993 s.2
• Public Enterprises Reform and Divesture Act 1993 s.34
• Public Enterprises Reform and Divesture (Amendment) Statute 2000 s.21
• Public Enterprises Reform and Divesture Act 1993 s.23
• Public Enterprises Reform and Divesture Act 1993 s.23(a)
• Evidence Act s.101(1)
• Companies Act Cap 110
• Advocates (Professional Conduct) Regulations

Cases cited (16)

• Kilembe Mines Limited v Uganda Gold Mines Limited (Misc Application No. 312 of 2012)
• Soon Production Ltd v Soon Yeon Hong and Another (Misc Application No. 190 of 2005)
• Specioza Kalungi and Others v Attorney General (Civil Suit No. 63 of 2008)
• Mathias Lwanga Kaganda v Uganda Electricity Board (Civil Suit No. 124 of 2003)
• Ndaula Ronald v Haji Nadduli Abdul (Election Petition No. 20 of 2006)
• Mulangira Ssimbwa v The Board of Trustees, Miracle Centre and Another (Misc Application No. 576 of 2006)
• Ayebazibwe Raymond v Barclays Bank (Civil Suit No. 165 of 2012)
• Kalungi and 62 Others v Attorney General (Court of Appeal Civil Appeal No. 76 of 2011)
• Priamit Enterprises Ltd v Attorney General (Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 10 of 2001)
• Specioza Kalungi and 62 Others v Attorney General (Court of Appeal Civil Appeal No. 76 of 2011)
• Godfrey Baguma and Others v The Executive Director PERD (Civil Suit No. 659 of 1999)
• Sebuliba Busuulwa v Cooperative Bank (1982) HCB 129
• J.K Patel and Spear Motors Limited (Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 4 of 1991)
• Rookes v Barnard [1964] ALL ER
• Obongo and Another v Municipal Council of Kisumu [1971] EA 91
• Bishanga Silagi v Bataha Joselin (Civil Suit No. 15 of 2011)

Cases citing this judgment (2)

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.

• Afayo & Anor v Izio Enzama (MISCELLANEOUS CIVIL APPLICATION No. 0073 OF 2017)
• Otikor & Ors v Anya (Civil Appeal No. 38 of 2012.)

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