Tsama William and Others v Attorney General and Others (Miscellaneous Cause 24 of 2020)
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 where an applicant seeks to rely on public documents as evidence, the Evidence Act requires certified copies to be produced. Uncertified photocopies are inadmissible unless the applicant proves the originals are in the respondent's possession and notice was given to produce them. Where the affidavit in support relies heavily on uncertified public documents, the application is rendered unsupported. The application for enforcement of human rights was dismissed on this preliminary ground without consideration of its merits.
Outcome
Application dismissed on preliminary objection relating to admissibility of evidence without consideration of merits
Facts
On 3 December 2019, multiple landslides occurred in Bushika sub-county, Bududa district, resulting in loss of life and property. The applicants, 48 persons affected by the landslides, filed an application seeking declarations that their constitutional rights to life, property, and a clean and healthy environment were infringed by the respondents' failure to implement measures to mitigate landslide threats, including resettlement and early warning systems. The Mt Elgon region has a history of recurring landslides following heavy rains. The applicants alleged the respondents were aware of these threats and had pledged to safeguard lives but failed to implement promised protective measures. An expert affidavit by Vincent Yiga, a natural resource scientist, was filed in support, attaching various documents. The respondents raised preliminary objections to the expert evidence and the admissibility of uncertified photocopies of public documents annexed to the expert's affidavit.
Issues
- Whether the application is supported by admissible evidence where uncertified photocopies of public documents are annexed to the supporting affidavit.
- Whether expert evidence is required and appropriately presented in a human rights enforcement application.
- Whether the respondents violated the applicants' constitutional rights to life, property, and a clean and healthy environment in relation to the 2019 landslides in Bududa district.
Orders
- Application dismissed.
- No order as to costs.
Rules and key headnotes
Legislation cited (22)
- Constitution of Uganda 1995 Article 50(1)
- Constitution of Uganda 1995 Article 22
- Constitution of Uganda 1995 Article 26
- Constitution of Uganda 1995 Article 39
- Human Rights (Enforcement) Act s.3(1)
- Human Rights (Enforcement) Act s.9(1)
- Human Rights (Enforcement) Act s.9(2)
- National Environment Act 2019 s.3(1)
- National Environment Act 2019 s.3(2)
- National Environment Act 2019 s.3(3)
- National Environment Act 2019 s.3(4)
- National Environment Act 2019 s.3(5)
- Civil Procedure Act Cap 71 s.98
- Civil Procedure Rules SI 71-1 Order 52 Rules 1 & 2
- Judicature (Fundamental and Other Human Rights and Freedoms) (Enforcement Procedure) Rules 2019 Rule 6(1)
- Judicature (Fundamental and Other Human Rights and Freedoms) (Enforcement Procedure) Rules 2019 Rule 10
- Evidence Act Cap 8 s.60
- Evidence Act Cap 8 s.64(1)(a)
- Evidence Act Cap 8 s.64(1)(e)
- Evidence Act Cap 8 s.64(4)
- Evidence Act Cap 8 s.75
- Evidence Act Cap 8 s.76
Cases cited (1)
- Ben Byabashatja and Another v Attorney General (Civil Suit No. 134 of 1991)
Full judgment
The original judgment as reported. Read the original PDF before relying on any passage.