Wakilii

Uwonda and Another v Total E and P (U) Limited (Civil Suit No. 13 of 2016)

High Court · [2021] UGHCCD 176 · 2021 Preliminary Objection Dismissed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Ruling on preliminary objection to jurisdiction in first instance civil suit for compensation and human rights violations arising from petroleum exploration activities
Decision
Preliminary objection dismissed; matter to proceed to hearing on merits

Observed later treatment

Cited — treatment unverified cited in 3 (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 3 times with no adverse treatment recorded; not yet tested on the merits. Citations rising — 3 citing cases on record, 3 in the most recent three data years. 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 High Court has jurisdiction to entertain claims for compensation arising from petroleum activities despite Section 139(2) of the Petroleum Act providing for determination by the Chief Government Valuer. Section 139(2) does not oust the unlimited original jurisdiction conferred on the High Court by Article 139 of the Constitution; it merely provides an alternative administrative remedy. For a statute to oust High Court jurisdiction, it must do so expressly.

Outcome

Preliminary objection dismissed; matter to proceed to hearing on merits

Facts

The plaintiffs, 105 residents of Kisomere village in Buliisa District, filed suit against Total E & P (U) Ltd claiming compensation for destruction of crops during petroleum exploration activities on their land and alleging violations of their rights to life, livelihood, food, and protection from deprivation of property. The plaintiffs alleged that access roads were created through their lands and crops destroyed without prompt, fair and adequate compensation. Some of the affected families complained their crops were destroyed but not accounted for in the Chief Government Valuer's approved valuation report. The defendant raised a preliminary objection that the High Court lacked jurisdiction because Section 139(2) of the Petroleum (Exploration, Development and Production) Act 2013 confers jurisdiction on the Chief Government Valuer to determine disputes over compensation for damage caused during petroleum activities.

Issues

  1. Whether the High Court has jurisdiction to entertain a suit for compensation for crops damaged during petroleum exploration activities where Section 139(2) of the Petroleum (Exploration, Development and Production) Act 2013 provides that disputes shall be determined by the Chief Government Valuer.

Orders

  • Preliminary objection overruled.
  • The suit to proceed and be heard on its merits.

Rules and key headnotes

Constitutional Law — Jurisdiction of Courts — High Court Original Jurisdiction — Article 139 Constitution
The High Court has unlimited original jurisdiction in all matters under Article 139(1) of the Constitution, subject only to express provisions of the Constitution itself.
Statutory Interpretation — Ouster of Jurisdiction — Need for Express Language
For a statute to oust the jurisdiction of the High Court, it must say so expressly. Where legislation establishes an administrative remedy without expressly excluding court jurisdiction, it provides an alternative avenue of redress rather than an exclusive one.
Administrative Law — Specialised Tribunals — Concurrent Jurisdiction with Courts
Section 139(2) of the Petroleum (Exploration, Development and Production) Act 2013, which provides that disputes over compensation for petroleum-related damage shall be determined by the Chief Government Valuer, does not oust the jurisdiction of the High Court but merely provides a specialised administrative remedy that operates concurrently with the court's original jurisdiction.
Civil Procedure — Preliminary Objections — Jurisdiction — Interpretation of Statutory Provisions
Where a statutory provision uses mandatory language directing that a dispute 'shall' be determined by an administrative body, this does not automatically oust court jurisdiction unless the statute expressly prohibits recourse to the courts or unless the Constitution itself reserves jurisdiction exclusively to that body.

Legislation cited (7)

Cases cited (5)

  • Guangzhou Dongsong Energy Co. Ltd v Ms Fang Min (HCMA No. 500 of 2016)
  • Nile Fos Minerals Ltd v Attorney General and 2 Others (HCMA No. 361 of 2013)
  • Uganda Revenue Authority v Rabbo Enterprises (U) Ltd and Another (SCCA No. 12 of 2014)
  • Former Employees of G4S Security Services (U) Ltd v G4S Security Services Ltd (SCCA No. 18 of 2010)
  • Kayondo v The Co-operative Bank (U) Ltd (SCCA No. 109 of 1992)

Cases citing this judgment (3)

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.

Uwonda and Another v Total E and P (U) Limited (Civil Suit No. 13 of 2016) [2021] UGHCCD 176 (21 December 2021)
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.