Uganda Blankets Manufacturers 1973 Limited v Attorney General (Civil Appeal 24 of 1998) [1999] UGCA 31 (25 June 1999)

# THE REPUBLIC OF UGANDA

### IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF UGANDA

# HOLDEN AT KAMPALA

HON. MR. JUSTICE G. M. OKELLO, JA. CORAM: HON. LADY JUSTICE A. E. MPAGI-BAHIGEINE, JA HON. LADY JUSTICE C. N. B. KITUMBA, JA.

$10$

$20$

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 24 OF 1998

# UGANDA BLANKETS MANUFACTURERS 1973 LTD. APPELLANT

### **VERSUS**

#### ATTORNEY GENERAL..................... RESPONDENT (An appeal from the ruling of the High Court Lugayizi J. dated 21<sup>st</sup> May 1997 HCCS NO. 573 of 1988)

#### JUDGMENT OF THE COURT:

This is an appeal against the ruling of the High Court in which the learned trial judge dismissed the appellant's application for payment by the respondent of a sum of Uq. Shs. $15,007,320/$ = being interest on costs.

The facts giving rise to this appeal are 30 briefly as follows: The appellant was the successful party in Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 15 of 1992 against the Attorney General. The appellant was awarded general damages, order of accounts of appellant's company business and assets, declaration that the appellant's company was entitled to exclusive possession of its business and residential premises, costs of the appeal and suit and interest on the decretal amount. 40

In the leading judgment by Platt JSC, (as he then was) the orders were made as follows:-

$(a)$ .....................

(b) $\ldots$ $\ldots$

(C) $\cdots$

(d) Costs this appeal and in the court below. Interest at normal court rates"

The Chief Justice and Oder JSC agreed with the above orders. Oder JSC wrote as follows:

$10$

$20$

"(a) ......................... (b) $\ldots$ $\ldots$ $(C)$ .................................... (d) Costs of this appeal and of the suit; and (e) Interest at the current court rate"

Thereafter the appellant's bill of costs was drawn up, taxed at Ug. Sh. $37,515,300/=$ and a certificate of taxation was issued by the taxing master. The taxed costs were paid later by the Government. However, the Government refused to pay the appellant's claim of interest on costs which amounted to Uq. Shs.15,007,320/=.

The appellant made an application to the High Court that an order of mandamus be made to direct the Treasury Officer of Accounts to pay that amount of interest on costs.

The learned trial judge dismissed the application. The appellant filed this appeal on <pre>30 two grounds namely;</pre>

- $"1.$ The learned Judge erred in his findings that no interest was payable on the costs of the suit. - 2. The learned judge erred in holding that no demand was made on the Treasury Officer of Accounts to pay the interest on costs."

Mr. Yese Mugenyi, learned counsel for the appellant argued the two grounds consecutively. We shall deal with them in a similar manner.

$\overline{2}$

On ground 1, Mr. Mugenyi submitted that according to Section $3(b)$ of The Government Proceedings Act (Cap. 69), the English Crown Proceedings' Act 1947 applies to the proceedings against the Government of Uganda. He contended that Section 24(2) of The Crown Proceedings Act 1947 provides that interest on costs is automatic unless the judge directs otherwise. We do not agree with Counsel's contention. Section 3(b) of The Government Proceedings Act (Supra) provides that proceedings against the Government are enforced in accordance with the said Act. We find that all references by counsel to English authorities are irrelevant and quite misleading.

are in entire We agreement with the submissions of Mr. Cheborion Barishaki, learned counsel for the appellant, that as provided by Section 19 of The Government Proceedings Act the 20 law applicable to the instant case is Section 27(2) of the Civil Procedure Act. Interest on costs is given at the discretion of the court and the party must plead for the interest.

We agree with the statement of the law in Shadi Ram Mohindra V B. C. Mohindra [1957] EA. 708, by the Supreme Court of Kenya where Section 27(2) of the Civil Procedure Act of Kenya which is similar to ours in which it was held that; cost do not carry interest, unless there is an order for interest on costs.

The learned trial Judge was right in his finding that no order of interest on costs was made and the appellant did not include such a prayer in its pleadings. We are unable to accept Mr. Mugenyi's contention that the prayer is not part of the pleadings in the case. Ground 1 therefore must fail.

We turn to ground 2 which is a complaint that the learned trial Judge erred in holding that

$\overline{3}$

there was no demand to the Treasury Officer of Accounts to pay costs.

Mr. Mugenyi submitted that, the application for the order of mandamus was such a demand. We disagree with Mr. Mugenyi's contention. The learned trial Judge found that the demand for payment for interest on costs had to be backed by a certificate of taxation. We agree. The law on that point is clear and is provided by section 20(1) of The Government Proceedings' Act which provides that for payment ordered by court against Government a proper officer of court shall issue to that person a certificate in the prescribed form containing the particulars of the order.

The appellant accepted the bill of costs as taxed by the Registrar in HCCS No. 573 of 1988, and received the costs from the respondent. It is our considered view that the appellant was aware that no interest had been awarded on costs.

We find no merit in this appeal. It is accordingly dismissed with costs to the respondent.

at Kampala Dated of. June. 1999.

this. $25^{\mathcal{H}}$

$10$

Gulmo G. M. OKELLO

JUSTICE OF APPEAL.

A. E. MPAGI-BAHIGEINE JUSTICE OF APPEAL.

Crip: Filumba 1 C. N. B. KITUMBA JUSTICE OF APPEAL.

40