Wakilii

Excellent Assorted Manufaturers Limited v National Environment Management Authority (Miscellaneous Application 130 of 2024)

High Court · [2025] UGHCCD 8 · 2025 Application Granted AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Judicial review application challenging an environmental restoration order issued by NEMA requiring demolition of structures on applicant's land
Decision
Environmental restoration order quashed; matter may be reconsidered by NEMA following proper procedure

Observed later treatment

Cited — treatment unverified cited in 2 (treatment unverified) Sequitur — Uganda’s citator · Derived from citing cases in the Wakilii corpus — not an assertion that this case is good law.

Citator coverage is limited to judgments in the Wakilii corpus and source-matched treatment records. Absence of a signal is not an assertion that the case remains good law.

No adverse treatment recorded Cited 2 times with no adverse treatment recorded; not yet tested on the merits. Derived from citing cases in the Wakilii corpus — a deterministic signal, not legal advice.

AI-generated summary. This summary was generated by AI from the full text of the judgment. It may contain errors or omissions—always read the source judgment before relying on it.

Holding

The court held that NEMA's environmental restoration order was amenable to judicial review and was tainted with procedural impropriety. Despite conducting an inspection and report concerning Excellent Assorted Manufacturers Ltd as the registered proprietor, NEMA issued the restoration order to the applicant's tenant without affording the applicant any hearing or notice, breaching Article 42 of the Constitution and the principles of natural justice. The order was quashed by certiorari.

Outcome

Environmental restoration order quashed; matter may be reconsidered by NEMA following proper procedure

Facts

Excellent Assorted Manufacturers Ltd was the registered proprietor of land in Busiro Block 333 comprising Plot 978 and Plot 2652. In 2013, NEMA had issued the applicant a certificate of approval of Environmental Impact Assessment allowing factory upgrade on the land. In June 2024, NEMA inspectors conducted an inspection and found that the applicant and its tenant, Mahindi Grain Millers, had degraded the Lubigi wetland by erecting permanent structures without current authorization. NEMA issued an environmental restoration order on 19 June 2024 addressed to Mahindi Grain Millers requiring demolition of structures and restoration of the wetland. The order was not addressed to or served on the applicant, who learned of it through the tenant. The applicant was never invited to respond to the inspection findings before the order was issued. The structures were mortgaged to DFCU Bank. Part of the original land had been acquired by UNRA in 2021 for road construction.

Issues

  1. Whether there is a fit and proper case for judicial review?
  2. Whether the respondent's decision contained in the Environmental Restoration Order dated 19th June 2024 addressed to Mahindi Grain Millers was tainted with procedural irregularities, illegality, irrationality and offended the principles of natural justice?
  3. What remedies are available to the parties?

Orders

  • A declaration issued that the respondent's decision and orders contained in the Environmental Restoration Order dated 19th June 2024 was tainted with procedural impropriety and unfairness for failing to afford the applicant a hearing.
  • A writ of certiorari issued quashing the Environment Restoration Order dated 19th June 2024 addressed to Mahindi Grain Millers.
  • Application for permanent injunction declined.
  • Costs of the application awarded to the applicant against the respondent.

Rules and key headnotes

Judicial Review — Amenability — Environmental Restoration Orders — Whether Decisions Subject to Judicial Review
An environmental restoration order issued by NEMA under Section 130 of the National Environment Act constitutes an administrative decision amenable to judicial review. The order makes specific enforceable directions and notifies the affected person of a right of appeal, thereby constituting a determination arrived at after consideration of facts and law.
Judicial Review — Exhaustion of Alternative Remedies — When Not Required
An applicant for judicial review is not required to exhaust an alternative statutory remedy where that remedy is not effectively available to the applicant. Where an environmental restoration order is addressed to and served on a third party rather than the registered proprietor, the proprietor lacks locus standi to invoke the statutory review mechanism under Section 132(1) of the National Environment Act, which applies only to persons served with the order.
Administrative Law — Procedural Fairness — Natural Justice — Right to be Heard Before Adverse Decision
Article 42 of the Constitution requires that any person whose matter is being considered by an administrative body has a right to be treated justly and fairly. Procedural fairness demands that before a public authority makes an administrative decision detrimental to a person's property rights, the authority must draw the facts and impending decision to the affected party's attention to afford them an opportunity for input or at least awareness, even if no formal hearing is held.
Administrative Law — Procedural Impropriety — Issuing Order to Third Party Without Notice to Registered Proprietor
Where a public authority conducts an inspection in respect of a registered proprietor, makes findings concerning that proprietor's breach of environmental laws, but then issues an environmental restoration order requiring demolition of structures to a third-party tenant without copying the order to or affording any hearing to the registered proprietor, such conduct constitutes procedural impropriety, breach of natural justice, and discloses an element of bad faith by blindsiding the proprietor.
Judicial Review — Certiorari — When Granted
A writ of certiorari should be freely granted where a public authority has made a prejudicial decision in the course of exercising its statutory authority without according the affected party a right to be heard. The writ operates to quash the decision tainted with procedural impropriety.
Administrative Law — Prohibition — When Not Granted Despite Success on Judicial Review
Where an administrative decision is quashed on grounds of procedural impropriety but the public authority retains the statutory power to issue such orders in appropriate circumstances, a permanent injunction or order of prohibition restraining the authority from exercising its general statutory mandate is not appropriate. The remedy is limited to quashing the specific flawed decision.

Legislation cited (19)

Cases cited (14)

  • Leads Insurance Co. Ltd v Insurance Regulatory Authority (Civil Appeal No. 237 of 2015)
  • Salim Alibhai v URA (High Court Miscellaneous Cause No. 123 of 2020)
  • Amooti Godfrey Nyakana v NEMA & 6 Others (Constitutional Petition No. 3 of 2005)
  • Attorney General v Yustus Tinkasimmire & Others (Court of Appeal Civil Appeal No. 208 of 2013)
  • Kuluo Joseph Andrew & Others v Attorney General & Others (High Court Miscellaneous Cause No. 106 of 2010)
  • ACP Bakaleke Siraji v Attorney General (High Court Miscellaneous Cause No. 212 of 2018)
  • Dr. Lam-Lagoro James v Muni University (High Court Miscellaneous Cause No. 7 of 2016)
  • [2006] HCB 130
  • [1985] AC 374
  • [1958] 1 WLR 762
  • [2015] UGSC 14
  • Sewanyana Jimmy v Kampala International University (High Court Miscellaneous Cause No. 207 of 2016)
  • Editors Guild Uganda Limited & Another v Attorney General (High Court Miscellaneous Cause No. 400 of 2020)
  • Kampala University v National Council for Higher Education (High Court Miscellaneous Cause No. 53 of 2014)

Cases citing this judgment (2)

How later Ugandan judgments in the Wakilii corpus have cited this case. Treatment labels come from Sequitur — Uganda’s citator — each backed by a verbatim span from the citing judgment, and are not an assertion that this case is, or is not, good law.

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

The original judgment as reported. Read the original PDF before relying on any passage.

Excellent Assorted Manufaturers Limited v National Environment Management Authority (Miscellaneous Application 130 of 2024) [2025] UGHCCD 8 (16 January 2025)
Source: this page presents Wakilii’s issue analysis and metadata for a publicly reported Ugandan judgment. Any AI-generated summary is marked as such. Judgment text is sourced from the Uganda Legal Information Institute (ulii.org). Wakilii is not affiliated with ULII.