[2007] UGHC 25

[2007] UGHC 25

The court found that the plaintiffs had obtained a valid decree against the Government for substantial sums, including compensation for trucks, loss of income, and costs. Despite service of the decree and certificate, the Government had not complied. The law prohibits ordinary execution against the Government,...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2007] UGHC 25
Parties
Plaintiff: Goodman Agencies Ltd; Plaintiff: Hasa Agencies Ltd; Plaintiff: Emmanuel Hatangimbabazi; Plaintiff: Leonidas Felesi; Plaintiff: Janvier Busogi; Defendant: The Attorney General
Court
High Court of Uganda
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Number
Civil Suit No.719 of 1997
Procedural Posture
Civil Suit / Ruling on Application for Judicial Review and Mandamus
Outcome
application granted
Legal Topics
Judgment Enforcement, Mandamus Against Government, Execution of Decrees
Source Language
en
Civil Procedure Judgment Enforcement Mandamus Against Government Execution of Decrees

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 1 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Goodman Agencies Ltd

Plaintiff

Hasa Agencies Ltd

Plaintiff

Emmanuel Hatangimbabazi

Plaintiff

Leonidas Felesi

Plaintiff

Janvier Busogi

Plaintiff

The Attorney General

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Suit / Ruling on Application for Judicial Review and Mandamus

  1. 1 Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to an order of mandamus compelling the Government to comply with the court's decree.
  2. 2 Whether execution against the Government is permissible under Ugandan law.
  3. 3 Whether there is any other lawful mode for the plaintiffs to recover the decretal amount from the Government.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the plaintiffs had obtained a valid decree against the Government for substantial sums, including compensation for trucks, loss of income, and costs. Despite service of the decree and certificate, the Government had not complied. The law prohibits ordinary execution against the Government, leaving the plaintiffs without any other lawful means to recover the decretal amount. The court held that, in such circumstances, an order of mandamus is appropriate to compel the Government, through the Treasury Officer of Accounts, to comply with the judgment and deposit the decretal sum into court. The application was therefore granted under Order 46A Rule 4 of the Civil...

Court Disposition

application granted

Orders

  • Application for judicial review and leave to apply for mandamus is granted under Order 46A Rule 4 CPR.
  • Costs shall be in the cause.