Wakilii

Owor v Hammerline Extractions Limited and Another (Civil Suit 648 of 2016)

High Court · [2023] UGHCCD 343 · 2023 Judgment for Plaintiff AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
First instance civil suit for nuisance and damages arising from quarrying operations
Decision
Judgment entered for plaintiff with declaration of nuisance, damages totalling UGX 83,400,000, permanent injunction granted, and costs awarded

Observed later treatment

Cited — treatment unverified cited in 1 (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 1 time 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 the 1st Defendant's blasting and quarrying operations on land adjacent to the Plaintiff's farm constituted a private nuisance. The blasting caused physical damage to the Plaintiff's buildings, resulted in stillbirths of pigs and reduced egg production, and substantially interfered with the Plaintiff's use and enjoyment of her land. The Plaintiff was not contributorily negligent for establishing her farm after the 1st Defendant obtained quarrying approval. The 2nd Defendant did not fail in its statutory duties under the National Environmental Act. Special and general damages were awarded, along with a permanent injunction restraining the 1st Defendant from blasting operations constituting a nuisance.

Outcome

Judgment entered for plaintiff with declaration of nuisance, damages totalling UGX 83,400,000, permanent injunction granted, and costs awarded

Facts

The Plaintiff, registered proprietor of land in Buntaba, Mukono District, established a poultry and piggery farm in 2012. The 1st Defendant, a quarrying company operating since 2007 with approval from the 2nd Defendant (National Environment Management Authority), conducted blasting operations on adjacent land. On 21 July 2015, the Plaintiff objected to planned blasting near her property, warning of potential harm to her livestock. Despite her notification to the 2nd Defendant, whose officer attended but could not stop the blast, blasting proceeded. Subsequent blasts on 29 July 2016 caused physical damage to farm buildings, with stones weighing up to 15kg flying through the air. A piggery room was destroyed, and the Plaintiff's pigs suffered 49 stillbirths while egg-laying productivity decreased. The 1st Defendant admitted to conducting the blasts and compensated other residents but not the Plaintiff, leading her to close and abandon her farm.

Issues

  1. Whether the activities of the 1st Defendant at Buntaba village in Mukono District amount to nuisance
  2. Whether the Plaintiff is liable in contributory negligence for her actions
  3. Whether the 2nd Defendant failed in its statutory duties as enshrined in the law in relation to the land at Buntaba Village in Mukono District
  4. What remedies are available to the parties

Orders

  • It is hereby declared that the 1st Defendant's blasts and excavations caused a nuisance on the Plaintiff's farm.
  • The 1st Defendant be and is hereby ordered to pay the Plaintiff Ushs. 73,400,000/- as special damages.
  • The 1st Defendant be and is hereby ordered to pay the Plaintiff Ushs. 10,000,000/- as General damages.
  • A permanent injunction be and is hereby issued restraining the 1st Defendant, its employees, agents and any one acting under it from carrying out blasts and excavations in a manner that constitutes a nuisance in its neighborhood.
  • The 1st Defendant pays costs of this suit.

Rules and key headnotes

Private Nuisance — Elements — Possessory Interest in Land
To establish a claim in private nuisance, the plaintiff must prove: (i) possessory interest in the land affected, either by ownership or right to possess; (ii) that the defendant actually performed an act interfering with the plaintiff's use and enjoyment of the land; and (iii) that the defendant's act caused substantial and unreasonable interference that a reasonable person would not tolerate.
Private Nuisance — Liability of Landowner — Reasonable Use of Land
Nuisance imposes a duty of reasonable use on neighbouring occupiers of land. A landowner's use of property becomes unreasonable and unlawful if it constitutes an appropriation of adjoining land and deprives the adjoining owner of reasonable enjoyment of their property to a material degree. Reasonable use of land leading to injury does not per se attract liability, but if the use denies the adjoining owner reasonable enjoyment of their land, the defendant is liable.
Contributory Negligence — Foreseeability of Harm — Duty to Take Reasonable Care
Contributory negligence requires the foreseeability of harm to oneself. A person is guilty of contributory negligence if they ought reasonably to have foreseen that if they did not act as a reasonable prudent person, they might be hurt. The plaintiff need not prevent any and all foreseeable accidents, but must take precautions to avoid generally foreseeable harm.
Contributory Negligence — Establishing Business Near Licensed Operation
Where a defendant operates under a regulatory licence imposing conditions to ensure peaceful co-existence with the community, a plaintiff who establishes a business in the area after the licence was granted is not contributorily negligent merely by virtue of locating there. The defendant must fulfil the conditions of the approval if carrying out operations in the area.
Statutory Duties — NEMA Monitoring and Supervision
Under the National Environmental Act Cap 153, the National Environment Management Authority is charged with coordinating, monitoring, regulating and supervising environmental management. In execution of its quarrying oversight functions, NEMA must ensure that quarrying activities are governed by principles, laws and regulations that quarry owners must adhere to. Where NEMA issues an improvement notice following breach of approval conditions, it has not failed in its statutory duty.
Special Damages — Standard of Proof — Documentary and Direct Evidence
Special damages must be specifically pleaded and proved, but strictly proving does not mean that proof must always be documentary evidence. Special damages can also be proved by direct evidence, for example by evidence of a person who received or paid, or testimonies of experts conversant with the matter. Special damages must be proved on the balance of probability.
Punitive Damages — Criteria for Award — Defendant's Conduct
Punitive or exemplary damages are awarded to punish, deter and express the court's outrage at a defendant who has acted in a highhanded, malicious, vindictive or oppressive manner. They are completely outside the field of compensation and focus on the defendant's misconduct rather than the injury suffered by the plaintiff. Lack of capacity to prevent harm after a system is set does not amount to impunity warranting punitive damages.

Legislation cited (11)

  • National Environmental Act Cap 153 s.2(2)(a)
  • National Environmental Act Cap 153 s.3(1)
  • National Environmental Act Cap 153 s.3(3)
  • National Environmental Act Cap 153 s.5
  • National Environmental Act Cap 153 s.6(i)
  • National Environmental Act Cap 153 s.6(ii)
  • National Environmental Act Cap 153 s.19
  • National Environmental Act Cap 153 s.20
  • National Environmental Act Cap 153 s.26
  • National Environmental (Environmental Impact Assessment) Regulations SI 153-1 regulation 26
  • Civil Procedure Act s.27(2)

Cases cited (13)

  • Lukanga Muhammd v Musa Juuko (Civil Suit No. 42 of 2016)
  • Cunard & Wife v Antifyre Ltd [1933] 1 KB 551
  • Brownsey v General Printing Ink Corp., 118 N.J.L. 505 (Sup. Ct. 1937)
  • De Frias v Rodney 1998 BDA LR 15
  • Jones v Livox Quarries Limited [1952] 2 QB 608
  • Gapco (U) Ltd v A.S. Transporters (U) Ltd (Civil Appeal No. 18 of 2004)
  • Haji Asuman Mutekanga v Equator Growers (U) Ltd (Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 7 of 1995)
  • Luzinda v Ssekamatte and 3 Others (Civil Suit No. 366 of 2017)
  • Obongo v Municipal Council of Kisumu [1971] EA 91
  • Premchandra Shenoi and Another v Maximov Oleg Petrovich (Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 9 of 2003)
  • Francis Butagira v Deborah Mukasa (Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 6 of 1989)
  • Iyamulemye David v Attorney General (Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 4 of 2013)
  • Kwizera Eddie v Attorney General (Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 1 of 2008)

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.

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Owor v Hammerline Extractions Limited and Another (Civil Suit 648 of 2016) [2023] UGHCCD 343 (2 November 2023)
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.