Court Orders Attorney General to Pay Shs 236 Million for Livestock Stolen by Army

The High court in Lira has ordered the Attorney General to pay over Shs 236 million in taxed costs to Betty Akello and John Francis Ongia for lost livestock during the Lango sub-region insurgency.

The case dates back to 2011 when Akello and Sam Obua, acting on behalf of 580 others, filed a civil suit against the government. They alleged that government soldiers took their livestock and failed to return it, in violation of the government’s constitutional duty to protect citizens and their property.

On May 2, 2014, the court ruled in favour of Akello and her team, awarding compensation for verified livestock. Each plaintiff was granted Shs 4 million in general damages, Shs 1 million in exemplary damages, and 25 per cent annual interest on the total compensation from February 24, 2011, until full payment.

However, progress on the case stalled for years until 2015, when additional plaintiffs, including Ongia and others, applied to be added as beneficiaries to the decree. In the latest development, the Attorney General challenged the costs awarded by Ssalaamu Godfrey Ngobi, the assistant registrar of the High court, who had re-taxed the bill of costs in the case. The AG primarily sought to review the instruction fee awarded to the plaintiffs’ lawyers.

Delivering his ruling, justice George Okello upheld the taxed costs and explained that Shs 136,127,000 was awarded for other items, while an additional Shs 100,000,000 was approved for instruction fees. This brought the total taxed costs to Shs 236,127,000, which the AG was ordered to pay through M/s Bashasha & Co. Advocates.

The court found that the plaintiffs were entitled to compensation for legal costs incurred while seeking justice for the government’s failure to protect their property. Justice Okello clarified that the inclusion of value added tax (VAT) on the instruction fee was rejected, citing the absence of a VAT certificate from the Uganda Revenue Authority.

He also exercised his powers under section 68(1) of the Advocates Act Cap 295 to resolve the matter conclusively, noting that sending the file back for further re-taxation could lead to endless litigation. The AG had sought to have the instruction fee and related awards set aside, but the court declined these requests, ensuring the plaintiffs’ right to recover legal costs was upheld