Chief Justice Flavian Zeija, Principal Judge Jane Frances Abodo and the Attorney General have been dragged to the High Court in Kampala over an administrative directive that bars the attachment and execution of government funds and property in satisfaction of court decrees.
The petition, filed by Omongole and Co. Advocates, challenges an administrative order issued by the Principal Judge on April 1, arguing that it is unconstitutional, unlawful, and undermines the rights of successful litigants to enjoy the fruits of their judgments.
According to court documents, the law firm contends that the directive violates Article 2 of the Constitution, which establishes the supremacy of the Constitution and renders void any law or act that is inconsistent with it.
“The said directive is contrary to Article 2 of the Constitution, which establishes constitutional supremacy and invalidates acts inconsistent with the Constitution,” the petition states.
The petitioners further argue that the directive unlawfully extends protections available to the central government under the Government Proceedings Act to local governments, statutory bodies, commissions, and other government agencies that are not covered by the law.
“That the directive improperly extends protections applicable to the central Government under the Government Proceedings Act to local governments and other independently established government corporations or commissions contrary to law,” the court documents read.
The law firm also faults the Principal Judge for allegedly relying on judicial precedents that do not support the directive.
Ms Mary Akaro Edotu, a staff member in the law firm, in her affidavit to support the law firm’s case, contends that the Principal Judge’s directive contravenes Section 6 (2) of the Local Governments Act, which expressly permits execution against local government’s attachable property after six months from judgment, except fixed assets and statutory transfers.
She adds that the said directive has adversely affected decree holders, litigants, and advocates by obstructing lawful enforcement of court judgments and that Omongole and Co. Advocates is one of them.
The petition cites the decision in Nampongo Robert and Another v Attorney General Constitutional Petition No. 43 of 2012, arguing that the case concerned only the central government and not local governments. It also references Ostraco Ltd vs Attorney General, Civil Appeal No. 32 of 2002, where courts warned against granting the government preferential treatment over other litigants.
The petitioners further contend that the directive unfairly restricts decree holders from enforcing court awards and effectively denies them the right to be heard and obtain meaningful remedies after successful litigation.
They are seeking several declarations and orders from the court, including the quashing of the directive and an injunction stopping judicial officers from implementing it.
Among the remedies sought is “an order of injunction restraining judicial officers under all courts of law in Uganda from implementing the said directive.”
The petitioners also seek a declaration that the directive is ultra vires, unconstitutional and inconsistent with the Judicature Act, the Local Governments Act and established principles of the rule of law.
In addition, they want the court to declare that local governments, being corporate entities under Section 6 of the Local Governments Act, are subject to lawful execution in accordance with the law.
The contested directive, issued by the Principal Judge on April 1, directed courts not to entertain applications for attachment, garnishee orders or other execution proceedings against government accounts unless the execution is specifically provided for under the approved government budget for the relevant financial year.
The directive was issued amid concerns over increasing execution proceedings against government entities, which judicial administrators argued could disrupt public service delivery and implementation of approved budgets.
The case is expected to reignite debate over the balance between protecting public funds and ensuring that successful litigants can enforce court judgments against government institutions.
By press time, the respondents in the case hadn’t filed their respective responses before the matter could be heard.