[2017] UGHCCD 70

[2017] UGHCCD 70

The court held that since an earlier order for mandamus had already been issued in Miscellaneous Cause No. 48 of 2009, compelling the respondent to pay the applicants the decretal sum with interest, the matter was res judicata. The certificate of order against the Secretary to Treasury dated 11th May 2010 had not...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2017] UGHCCD 70
Parties
Applicant: Nampogo Robert; Applicant: Tumwesigye Moses; Respondent: Attorney General
Court
HC: Civil Division (Uganda)
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Number
MISCELLANEOUS CAUSE No. 246 OF 2016
Procedural Posture
Miscellaneous Cause / Ruling on Application for Mandamus
Outcome
application dismissed with costs
Judges
Musota, J
Legal Topics
Prerogative Writs, Mandamus, Res Judicata, Enforcement of Judgments
Source Language
en
Civil Procedure Prerogative Writs Mandamus Res Judicata Enforcement of Judgments

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
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Nampogo Robert

Applicant

Tumwesigye Moses

Applicant

Attorney General

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Miscellaneous Cause / Ruling on Application for Mandamus

  1. 1 Whether a fresh application for mandamus can be maintained on the same facts and claim after a previous mandamus order has been issued.
  2. 2 Whether the matter is res judicata in light of the earlier order for mandamus.

Ratio Decidendi

The court held that since an earlier order for mandamus had already been issued in Miscellaneous Cause No. 48 of 2009, compelling the respondent to pay the applicants the decretal sum with interest, the matter was res judicata. The certificate of order against the Secretary to Treasury dated 11th May 2010 had not been set aside or varied and therefore only required enforcement, not a fresh application for mandamus. Consequently, the present application was dismissed as it could not legally arise on the same facts and claim.

Court Disposition

application dismissed with costs

Orders

  • The application for mandamus is dismissed with costs to the respondent.