Execellent Assorted Manufacturers Limted v National Environment Management Authority (Miscellaneous Application 666 of 2024)

Observed later treatment

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.

Holding

Held that the applicant satisfied all conditions for grant of a temporary injunction. The court found a prima facie case with probability of success in the pending judicial review challenging the Environmental Restoration Order, which ordered demolition of structures allegedly erected with NEMA's prior approval. The applicant would suffer irreparable injury if its structures were demolished before the judicial review was heard, as demolition would render the remedy sought nugatory and the injury could not be adequately compensated in damages. Status quo preserving the structures until final disposal of the judicial review application was necessary to enable the applicant to exercise its right to a fair hearing. Application allowed; temporary injunction granted restraining NEMA from implementing the Environmental Restoration Order until final disposal of the judicial review.

Outcome

Temporary injunction granted restraining NEMA from implementing Environmental Restoration Order and from demolishing applicant's structures pending final disposal of the judicial review application

Facts

The applicant is the registered owner of land comprised in Busiro Block 333 Plot 978 and Plot 2652 (formerly Plot 1506) on which it operates a factory. The applicant obtained approval from NEMA in 2013 for factory upgrade following approval of its Environmental Impact Assessment report and was issued a Certificate of Approval valid for five years. On 19 June 2024, NEMA issued an Environmental Restoration Order addressed to Mahindi Grain Millers (the applicant's tenant on part of the property) requiring it to stop dumping in the wetland, remove all dumped materials, demolish all structures, vacate the property, and restore the degraded wetland within 21 days. NEMA's inspection found that the applicant's certificate had expired in 2018 without renewal, the applicant was not complying with approval conditions, no environmental audit had been conducted, facilities were generating untreated effluent discharged directly to the wetland, the applicant had degraded the wetland by backfilling and stockpiling sand, and solid hazardous waste was being disposed into the wetland. The applicant filed an application for judicial review challenging the procedure and manner in which the restoration order was issued. The applicant then filed this application for a temporary injunction to restrain NEMA from implementing the demolition order pending determination of the judicial review.

Issues

1. Whether the applicant has raised sufficient grounds for the grant of an order of a temporary injunction in the terms sought

Orders

• An order of a temporary injunction doth issue restraining the respondent, its enforcement team, officials, agents and or persons acting under its authority from implementing the decision and orders contained in the Environmental Restoration Order dated 19th June 2024 addressed to Mahindi Grain Millers C/o Kisakye Philip, the applicant's tenant on part of the property, requiring it to vacate and demolish all the structures on land comprised in Busiro Block 333 Plot 978 and land known as Busiro Block 333 Plot 2652 formerly Plot 1506 and requiring it to restore the same within 21 days, until the final disposal of the application for judicial review.
• An order of a temporary injunction doth issue restraining the respondent, its enforcement team, officials, agents and or persons acting under its authority from evicting the applicant and or its tenant and demolishing its property and developments or any part of the factory premises on land comprised in and known as Busiro Block 333 Plot 978 and land known as Busiro Block 333 Plot 2652 formerly Plot 1506 on grounds that they were erected without the respondent's approval, until the final disposal of the application for judicial review.
• The costs of the application shall abide the outcome of the main cause.

Rules and key headnotes

Legislation cited (6)

• Judicature Act s.38
• Civil Procedure Act s.98
• Civil Procedure Rules Order 41 rules 1, 7 and 9
• National Environment Act
• Land Act s.43
• Land Act s.44

Cases cited (10)

• Kiyimba Kaggwa v Hajji Abdul Nasser Katende [1985] HCB 43
• Giella v Cassman Brown & Co Ltd [1973] 1 EA 358
• Baligasiima v Kiiza & Others (Miscellaneous Application No. 1495 of 2016)
• Daniel Mukwaya v Administrator General (Civil Suit No. 630 of 1993)
• Erisa Rainbow Musoke v Ahamada Kezala [1987] HCB 81
• Imelda Gertrude Basudde v Tereza Mwewulize (Miscellaneous Application No. 402 of 2003)
• American Cyanamid v Ethicon Ltd [1975] 1 All ER 504
• Robert Kavuma v Hotel International (Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 8 of 1990)
• Kisakye Suzan v Ameu Zadok Olokos & Another (Miscellaneous Application No. 0142 of 2022)
• Tonny Wasswa v Joseph Kakooza [1987] HCB 79

Cases citing this judgment (1)

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.

• Gaboi Nicholas v Kyambogo University (Miscellaneous Application 250 of 2026)

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