Wakilii

Water and Environment Media Network (U) Ltd v National Environment Management Authority (MISCELLANEOUS APPLICTION NO 509 OF 2020)

High Court · [2020] UGHCCD 214 · 2020 Application Dismissed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Application for temporary injunction arising from miscellaneous cause seeking judicial review of ESIA certificate approval
Decision
Application for temporary injunction dismissed with costs to the respondent

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

The High Court dismissed an application for a temporary injunction to restrain implementation of an ESIA certificate issued by NEMA to Hoima Sugar Ltd. The court held that the injunction was sought against the wrong party, as the third party developer (Hoima Sugar Ltd) was not joined to the proceedings. The court further held that the application was premised on disputed and misleading facts, and that granting the injunction would effectively grant the final relief sought in the main judicial review application. The court emphasised that temporary injunctions in public law matters must be exercised with caution and that disputed facts preclude a finding of a prima facie case.

Outcome

Application for temporary injunction dismissed with costs to the respondent

Facts

The applicant, an environmental advocacy organisation, sought a temporary injunction to restrain NEMA from implementing a certificate of approval for an Environmental and Social Impact Assessment (ESIA) issued to Hoima Sugar Ltd on 14 August 2020 for the Kyangwali Mixed Land Use Project. The applicant alleged that the project would involve growing sugarcane on part of and areas around Bugoma Central Forest Reserve, and that NEMA had issued the certificate without public consultation and without proper involvement of the National Forestry Authority. The applicant contended that Hoima Sugar Ltd was threatening to implement the decision by bringing tractors to clear the land. NEMA opposed the application, stating that the project was located on Plot 216, Block 2, Buhaguzi, Kyangwali Sub-County, Kikuube District, which was the property of the Omukama of Bunyoro Kingdom, not Bugoma Forest Reserve. NEMA stated that public consultations had been conducted, that mitigation measures restricted activities to grassland areas (9 square miles out of 22), and that the developer had obtained a lease and was already in possession. The court noted that Hoima Sugar Ltd, the intended beneficiary of the ESIA certificate and the party whose activities the applicant sought to restrain, was not joined as a party to the proceedings.

Issues

  1. Whether the applicant satisfied the conditions for grant of a temporary injunction.
  2. Whether the temporary injunction was sought against the proper party.
  3. Whether the applicant established a prima facie case with probability of success.
  4. Whether the balance of convenience favoured the grant of a temporary injunction.
  5. Whether the facts presented by the applicant were sufficiently reliable to support the grant of an injunction.

Orders

  • Application dismissed.
  • Costs awarded to the respondent.

Rules and key headnotes

Temporary Injunctions — Joinder of Parties — Injunction Against Non-Party
A temporary injunction cannot be granted against a party who is not before the court. Where the intended effect of an injunction is to restrain the activities of a third party who has not been joined to the proceedings, the application must fail as the court cannot condemn a party without according them a hearing.
Temporary Injunctions — Disputed Facts — Prima Facie Case
Where the facts upon which an application for a temporary injunction is based are seriously disputed, a prima facie case cannot be made out. The court should be slow to grant an injunction premised on facts which are in dispute or which are misleading or constitute deliberate falsehoods.
Judicial Review — Temporary Injunctions — Grant of Final Relief
A temporary injunction should not be granted where it would effectively grant the final relief sought in the main judicial review application. The purpose of a temporary injunction is to preserve the status quo pending final determination, not to pre-empt the substantive decision.
Temporary Injunctions — Public Law Matters — Exercise of Discretion
In public law matters and judicial review applications, there are no hard and fast rules for granting temporary injunctions. The power must be exercised with caution, prudence, discretion and circumspection, and the circumstances of each case will determine whether to grant the injunction, bearing in mind factors including public interest and balance of convenience.
Temporary Injunctions — Status Quo — Preservation Pending Final Determination
The status quo to be preserved by a temporary injunction is the existing state of affairs before a given particular point in time. Where a certificate or approval has already been issued and not cancelled, an injunction to stay its implementation may amount to granting the final orders sought in the main suit rather than preserving the status quo.

Legislation cited (7)

Cases cited (10)

  • Kiyimba Kaggwa v Hajji Katende Abdu Nasser (HCCS No. 2109 of 1984)
  • Equator International Distributors Ltd v Beiersdorf East Africa Ltd & Others (Miscellaneous Application No. 1127 of 2014)
  • Yahaya Kariisa v Attorney General & Another (SCCA No. 7 of 1994)
  • Titus Tayebwa v Fred Bogere and Eric Mukasa (Civil Appeal No. 3 of 2009)
  • American Cyanamid Co v Ethicon Ltd [1975] AC 396
  • Humphrey Nzeyi v Bank of Uganda and Attorney General (Constitutional Application No. 01 of 2013)
  • Behangana Domaro and Another v Attorney General (Constitutional Application No. 73 of 2010)
  • Daniel Mukwaya v Administrator General (HCCS No. 630 of 1993)
  • Erisa Rainbow Musoke v Ahamada Kezala [1987] HCB 81
  • Kiyimba Kaggwa v Haji AN Katende [1985] HCB 43

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Water and Environment Media Network (U) Ltd v National Environment Management Authority (MISCELLANEOUS APPLICTION NO 509 OF 2020) 2020 UGHCCD 214 (2 October 2020)
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.