Rustic Expeditions Limited v Uganda Wildlife Authority (Miscellaneous Application 11 of 2024)
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 applicant failed to establish a prima facie case for the grant of a temporary injunction. The Uganda Wildlife Authority Act s.6(1) clearly establishes the respondent as the controlling authority for development of tourist facilities in wildlife protected areas, and the applicant adduced no evidence that Kasese District Local Government had legal mandate over Bwenda Guest House. The application was dismissed.
Outcome
Application for temporary injunction dismissed for failure to establish prima facie case
Facts
The applicant sought a Letter of No Objection from Kasese District Local Government to develop Bwenda Guest House into a high-end lodge for USD 1.5 million. KDLG granted No Objection on 20 December 2023, with copies sent to the respondent. Despite this, the respondent invited bids in December 2023 for development and operation of tourist facilities including Bwenda Guest House in Queen Elizabeth National Park. The applicant applied for a temporary injunction to restrain the respondent from proceeding with the procurement process, arguing it had taken steps to raise capital and would suffer irreparable damage. The respondent contended that KDLG had no legal mandate over developments within wildlife protected areas, and that the applicant had itself submitted a bid in response to the invitation. The respondent relied on the Uganda Wildlife Authority Act s.6(1) which confers authority on it to control and licence development of tourist facilities in wildlife protected areas.
Issues
- Whether the applicant is entitled to a temporary injunction restraining the respondent from continuing the process of receipt of bids for the refurbishment and development of Bwenda Guest House.
- Whether the applicant has a prima facie case with probability of success.
Orders
- Application dismissed.
- Costs awarded to the respondent.
Rules and key headnotes
Legislation cited (4)
- Civil Procedure Act s.98
- Judicature Act s.38
- Civil Procedure Rules Order 41 Rules 2 and 9
- Uganda Wildlife Authority Act s.6(1)
Cases cited (2)
- Shiv Construction Ltd v Endesha Enterprises Ltd (Civil Appeal No. 34 of 1992)
- Gielila v Casman Brown (1973) EA 358
Full judgment
The original judgment as reported. Read the original PDF before relying on any passage.