Wakilii

Uwonda and Another v Total E & P (U) Ltd (Civil Suit No. 0013 of 2016)

High Court · [2021] UGHC 71 · 2021 Preliminary Objection Dismissed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Civil suit for human rights violations arising from petroleum activities; ruling on preliminary objection to jurisdiction
Decision
Matter to proceed to hearing on the merits

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

Held that Section 139(2) of the Petroleum (Exploration, Development and Production) Act 2013 does not oust the unlimited original jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 139 of the Constitution. The provision merely offers an alternative remedy through the Chief Government Valuer but does not expressly bar recourse to the ordinary courts. Preliminary objection overruled.

Outcome

Matter to proceed to hearing on the merits

Facts

The plaintiffs, representing 105 individuals from Kisomere village in Buliisa District, sued Total E & P (U) Ltd for human rights violations arising from the defendant's oil exploration activities. They alleged that the defendant created access roads on their land and destroyed their crops without paying prompt, fair and adequate compensation, thereby violating their rights to property, livelihood, life and food. The plaintiffs claimed they were dissatisfied with the Chief Government Valuer's certified compensation amounts and sought declarations, compensation and damages. At the commencement of the suit, 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 vests jurisdiction in such disputes with the Chief Government Valuer.

Issues

  1. Whether the High Court has jurisdiction to entertain a suit for compensation arising from crop damage during petroleum 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 is to proceed and be heard on its merits.

Rules and key headnotes

Constitutional Law — Jurisdiction — High Court Unlimited Original Jurisdiction — Ouster Clauses — Express Language Required
For a statute to oust the unlimited original jurisdiction of the High Court conferred by Article 139 of the Constitution, it must say so expressly. The use of mandatory language such as 'shall' in conferring jurisdiction on an administrative body does not, without more, oust the jurisdiction of the High Court.
Administrative Law — Statutory Tribunals and Administrative Bodies — Alternative Remedies — Effect on Court Jurisdiction
A statutory provision that confers jurisdiction on a specialized administrative body to determine disputes does not necessarily oust the jurisdiction of the ordinary courts. Where the statute does not expressly bar recourse to the courts, the administrative remedy is alternative, not exclusive.
Statutory Interpretation — Petroleum (Exploration, Development and Production) Act 2013 s.139(2) — Chief Government Valuer — Dispute Resolution Mechanism
Section 139(2) of the Petroleum (Exploration, Development and Production) Act 2013, which provides that disputes over compensation for crop damage during petroleum activities 'shall be determined by the Chief Government Valuer', merely provides a remedy for dissatisfied land owners and does not oust the jurisdiction of the High Court to entertain such disputes.
Constitutional Law — Articles 139 and 244 — Relationship — Regulation of Mineral Exploitation and Judicial Power
Article 244 of the Constitution, which empowers Parliament to regulate the exploitation of minerals including payment of indemnities, does not limit or oust the unlimited original jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 139. Both provisions operate concurrently, with Article 244 enabling regulation and Article 139 preserving judicial oversight.

Legislation cited (8)

Cases cited (5)

  • Guangzhou Dongsong Energy Co Ltd v 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 Co-op Bank (U) Ltd (SCCA No. 109 of 1992)

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.

Uwonda and Another v Total E & P (U) Ltd (Civil Suit No. 0013 of 2016) [2021] UGHC 71 (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.