Murenegzi Moses and Others v Kisoro District Local Government (Civil Suit 49 of 2017)
Observed later treatment
No later-treatment classification is recorded for this judgment.
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.
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
Held that the Defendant's agents acted lawfully in restoring the buffer zone of Lake Mulehe under constitutional and statutory authority. The Plaintiffs had encroached upon the 100-metre buffer zone required by law, cultivating within 3 to 100 metres of the lakeshore. The Defendant, as custodian of lakeshores under Article 237(2)(b) of the Constitution and the National Environment Regulations 2000, did not require the Plaintiffs' permission to enter the buffer zone. No trespass occurred. The suit was dismissed with each party bearing own costs.
Outcome
Suit dismissed — Plaintiffs' claims for trespass, compensation, damages, and injunction refused
Facts
The Plaintiffs, 50 landowners around Lake Mulehe in Kisoro District, claimed ownership of land and developments including crops, tea estates, and trees. On 11 April 2017, the Defendant's District Environment Officer, accompanied by armed officers and prisoners, entered the land and destroyed the Plaintiffs' crops and developments. The Plaintiffs claimed this was unlawful trespass and sought compensation of UGX 528,570,000, general and aggravated damages, and a permanent injunction. The Defendant contended that the Plaintiffs had encroached upon the statutory 100-metre buffer zone of Lake Mulehe and that the restoration operation was lawful under the Constitution and National Environment Regulations 2000. Evidence at locus in quo revealed that Plaintiffs had left only 3 metres as a buffer zone and that the Defendant's operation extended between 8 and 100 metres from the lakeshore. The Defendant had conducted community engagements prior to the operation and the operation occurred during harvest period, allowing Plaintiffs to mitigate losses.
Issues
- Whether the actions of the Defendant's agents were authorized and therefore legal.
- Whether the Defendant trespassed on the Suitland.
- Whether the Defendant is liable for the acts of its officers.
- Whether the Plaintiffs are entitled to any remedies.
Orders
- Suit dismissed.
- Each party to bear their own costs.
Rules and key headnotes
Legislation cited (15)
- Constitution of Uganda Article 237(1)
- Constitution of Uganda Article 237(2)(b)
- Constitution of Uganda Article 245
- National Environmental Act 1995 Cap 153
- National Environment (Wetlands, River Banks and Lakeshores Management) Regulations 2000 Regulation 2
- National Environment (Wetlands, River Banks and Lakeshores Management) Regulations 2000 Regulation 4
- National Environment (Wetlands, River Banks and Lakeshores Management) Regulations 2000 Regulation 18(2)
- National Environment (Wetlands, River Banks and Lakeshores Management) Regulations 2000 Regulation 21
- National Environment (Wetlands, River Banks and Lakeshores Management) Regulations 2000 Regulation 23
- National Environment (Wetlands, River Banks and Lakeshores Management) Regulations 2000 Regulation 30(1)
- National Environment (Wetlands, River Banks and Lakeshores Management) Regulations 2000 Regulation 30(2)
- Evidence Act s.101
- Evidence Act s.102
- Evidence Act s.103
- Evidence Act s.104
Cases cited (2)
- Justine E.M.N Lutaya v Sterling Civil Engineering Company (SCCA No. 11 of 2002)
- Sheikh Muhammed Lubowa v Kitara Enterprises (CA No. 4 of 1987)
Full judgment
The original judgment as reported. Read the original PDF before relying on any passage.