[2013] UGHCCD 6

[2013] UGHCCD 6

The application for an order of mandamus was dismissed because the act sought to be compelled—the execution of the licence agreement—had already been performed as of 11th January 2012, rendering the order unnecessary under Section 36(5) of the Judicature Act. The court found no refusal to perform the public duty and held that mandamus cannot issue where the duty has been fulfilled. The inclusion of the 2nd and 3rd respondents was unnecessary, as mandamus could be enforced against the 1st respondent and would trickle down to responsible officials. Section 69 of the National Forestry Authority and Tree Planting Act 2003 protects board members from personal liability for acts done in good...

Citation
[2013] UGHCCD 6
Parties
Applicant: Beachside Development Services Ltd; Respondent: National Forestry Authority; Respondent: Prof. Buyinza Mukadisi; Respondent: Gersom Onyango
Court
HC: Civil Division (Uganda)
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Judgment Date
21 January 2013
Case Number
Misc Cause No. 03 of 2012
Procedural Posture
Miscellaneous Application / Ruling
Outcome
application dismissed
Legal Topics
Judicial Review, Mandamus, Public Duty, Consent Judgment, Personal Liability, Damages for Delay
Source Language
English
Administrative Law Civil Procedure Judicial Review Mandamus Public Duty Consent Judgment Personal Liability Damages for Delay

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 4 Authorities cited 7 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Beachside Development Services Ltd

Applicant

National Forestry Authority

Respondent

Prof. Buyinza Mukadisi

Respondent

Gersom Onyango

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Miscellaneous Application / Ruling

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether an order of mandamus should issue to compel the respondents to execute a licence agreement as per the Court of Appeal judgment.
  2. 2 Whether the respondents are liable for damages for lost business due to delay in executing the licence agreement.
  3. 3 Whether the 2nd and 3rd respondents can be sued in their personal capacities for acts done in their official roles.

Ratio Decidendi

The application for an order of mandamus was dismissed because the act sought to be compelled—the execution of the licence agreement—had already been performed as of 11th January 2012, rendering the order unnecessary under Section 36(5) of the Judicature Act. The court found no refusal to perform the public duty and held that mandamus cannot issue where the duty has been fulfilled. The inclusion of the 2nd and 3rd respondents was unnecessary, as mandamus could be enforced against the 1st respondent and would trickle down to responsible officials. Section 69 of the National Forestry Authority and Tree Planting Act 2003 protects board members from personal liability for acts done in good...

Court Disposition

application dismissed

Orders

  • The application is dismissed with costs to the respondents.