[2006] UGCommC 40

[2006] UGCommC 40

The court found that the application for mandamus was not opposed on its merits and that the applicant had satisfied the requirements for issuance of the order. The respondent's preliminary objection on limitation was rejected; the court held that the relevant time for limitation purposes is when the applicant...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2006] UGCommC 40
Parties
Applicant: Argus Construction & Joinery Ltd; Respondent: Attorney General
Court
Commercial Court of Uganda
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Number
HCT-00-CC-MA 654 of 2006
Procedural Posture
Miscellaneous Application / Ruling
Outcome
application_allowed
Legal Topics
Mandamus, Government Proceedings, Judgment Enforcement, Judicial Review Time Limits
Source Language
en
Civil Procedure Administrative Law Mandamus Government Proceedings Judgment Enforcement Judicial Review Time Limits

Source-derived case record

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Downloadable case file Legal principles 2 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Argus Construction & Joinery Ltd

Applicant

Attorney General

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Miscellaneous Application / Ruling

  1. 1 Whether an order of mandamus should issue to compel payment of decretal sums by the government officer.
  2. 2 Whether the application for mandamus is time barred under Rule 5(1) of The Civil Procedure (Amendment) (Judicial Review) Rules, S.I. 75 of 2003.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the application for mandamus was not opposed on its merits and that the applicant had satisfied the requirements for issuance of the order. The respondent's preliminary objection on limitation was rejected; the court held that the relevant time for limitation purposes is when the applicant determines that the government officer will not comply with the certificate of order against government, which may be after the certificate is issued. Since the application was filed within three months of the certificate's issuance and after non-compliance was established, it was not time barred. The court therefore granted the order of mandamus, directing the Commissioner/Treasury...

Court Disposition

application_allowed

Orders

  • The Commissioner/Treasury Officer of Accounts is ordered to pay the decretal sums, interest, and costs as allowed by the court forthwith and without further delay.
  • The Attorney General shall meet the costs of these present proceedings.