Wakilii

Water and Environment Net work (U) Limited and 2 Others v National Environmental Management Authority and Anor (Consolidated Miscellaneous Cause No. 239 of 2020)

High Court · [2021] UGHCCD 30 · 2021 Application Dismissed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Judicial review applications seeking certiorari to quash environmental approval certificate and prohibition against implementation
Decision
Judicial review application dismissed; environmental approval certificate upheld as lawful

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 dismissed the judicial review application challenging NEMA's approval certificate for the Kyangwali Mixed Land Use Project. The court held that environmental NGO applicants had sufficient standing as public interest litigants. On exhaustion of remedies, the court found that the National Environment Act 2019 s.140(2) permits direct recourse to court without exhausting internal remedies. On the merits, the court ruled the Executive Director acted lawfully, finding proper stakeholder consultation, no statutory requirement for project briefs under Schedule 5, no obligation to hold public hearings absent controversy or transboundary impacts, and no procedural impropriety in the approval process.

Outcome

Judicial review application dismissed; environmental approval certificate upheld as lawful

Facts

Three environmental NGOs challenged NEMA's issuance of Certificate No. NEMA/ESIA 13709 on 14 August 2020 to Hoima Sugar Limited for the Kyangwali Mixed Land Use Project covering 2,393.8483 hectares out of 5,579 hectares of leasehold land. The applicants alleged flawed procedures, lack of public hearing, inadequate consultation, and failure to address land ownership disputes pending in Court of Appeal. NEMA responded that it followed the National Environment Act 2019 procedures under Schedule 5 for large-scale agriculture (over 20 hectares), consulted National Forestry Authority and other stakeholders who submitted written comments which were incorporated, held a meeting with 85 community members at Nsozi Primary School prior to COVID-19 restrictions, met with the applicants on 3 July 2020 to address their concerns, and determined no public hearing was required as there was no controversy or transboundary impact. The land is held under registered lease from the Omukama of Bunyoro Kingdom.

Issues

  1. Whether the application is competently before the court?
  2. Whether the applicants have locus standi to bring this judicial review application?
  3. Whether the applicants exhausted alternative remedies before applying for judicial review?
  4. Whether the issuance of the certificate of approval of Environment and Social Impact Assessment report was tainted with illegality and procedural impropriety?

Orders

  • Application dismissed.
  • Each party to bear its own costs.

Rules and key headnotes

Administrative Law — Judicial Review — Locus Standi — Public Interest Standing — Environmental NGOs
Environmental non-governmental organisations registered and actively working in environmental protection and public awareness have sufficient standing to bring judicial review proceedings challenging environmental approvals as public interest litigants, provided they have a track record of concern and activity in the relevant area of government decision-making and are not seeking personal gain, political advantage, or publicity.
Administrative Law — Judicial Review — Exhaustion of Alternative Remedies — Statutory Override
Where the enabling statute expressly provides that nothing in the internal review mechanism shall limit the court's jurisdiction, as under National Environment Act 2019 s.140(2), an aggrieved person is not required to exhaust internal administrative remedies before seeking judicial review, and the court retains discretion to hear the matter on its merits.
Environmental Law — Environmental Impact Assessment — Scope of Review — Project Briefs vs. Environmental and Social Impact Study
The National Environment Act 2019 differentiates between projects requiring environmental impact assessment by project brief under s.112 and Schedule 4, and those requiring environmental and social impact study under s.113 and Schedule 5. Large-scale agriculture of 20 hectares or more falls under Schedule 5 and does not require submission of a project brief to lead agencies, though consultation with stakeholders remains mandatory under the assessment regulations.
Environmental Law — Environmental Impact Assessment — Public Hearing — Discretion of Executive Director
Under Regulation 21 of the National Environment (Environmental Impact Assessment) Regulations S.I. No. 13 of 1998, the Executive Director of NEMA has discretion to either approve a project after considering stakeholder comments under Regulation 25, or hold a public hearing under Regulation 22. A public hearing is mandatory only where there is controversy or transboundary impacts. Judicial review focuses on the decision-making process, not the merits of whether the Executive Director should have exercised discretion differently.
Administrative Law — Consultation — Standard of Adequacy — Community Participation
The duty of consultation in environmental impact assessment requires that consultation be undertaken when proposals are at a formative stage, include sufficient reasons to allow intelligent consideration and response, allow adequate time, and the product of consultation be conscientiously considered. There is no statutory requirement as to the minimum number of community members who must be consulted, and the adequacy of consultation is a matter within the discretion of the decision-maker where the law prescribes no specific standard or quorum.
Administrative Law — Procedural Fairness — Alternative Hearing Methods — COVID-19 Pandemic
Procedural fairness in administrative decision-making does not necessarily require a trial-type hearing. Due to prevailing circumstances such as the COVID-19 pandemic and associated restrictions on public gatherings, inviting affected parties to make written submissions and holding consultative meetings before lockdown measures satisfies the requirement of procedural fairness appropriate to the administrative task.
Civil Procedure — Judicial Review — Affidavit in Rejoinder — Leave of Court Required
Neither the Civil Procedure Rules nor the Judicature (Judicial Review) Rules 2009 provide for filing affidavits in rejoinder, rebutter, surrejoinder, or surrebutter. Any additional or further affidavits must be filed with leave of court as supplementary affidavits. Affidavits filed as 'affidavits in rejoinder' without leave of court are wrongly filed and liable to be struck out.

Legislation cited (15)

  • Constitution of Uganda Article 42
  • Constitution of Uganda Article 39
  • Constitution of Uganda Article 50
  • Judicature Act Cap 13 s.33
  • Judicature Act Cap 13 s.36
  • National Environment Act No. 5 of 2019 s.113
  • National Environment Act No. 5 of 2019 s.112
  • National Environment Act No. 5 of 2019 s.140
  • National Environment (Environmental Impact Assessment) Regulations S.I. No. 13 of 1998 Regulation 12
  • National Environment (Environmental Impact Assessment) Regulations S.I. No. 13 of 1998 Regulation 18
  • National Environment (Environmental Impact Assessment) Regulations S.I. No. 13 of 1998 Regulation 21
  • National Environment (Environmental Impact Assessment) Regulations S.I. No. 13 of 1998 Regulation 22
  • National Environment (Environmental Impact Assessment) Regulations S.I. No. 13 of 1998 Regulation 25
  • National Environment (Environmental Impact Assessment) Regulations S.I. No. 153-1 Regulation 38
  • Public Health Control of COVID-19 Rules S.I. No. 83 of 2020

Cases cited (20)

  • Dr. Wilberforce Wandera Kifudde v National Animal Genetic Resources Centre and Data Bank (NAGRC&DB) & 2 Others (High Court Miscellaneous Cause No. 2 of 2020)
  • Dima Domnic Poro v Inyani Godfrey and Anor (HCCA No. 17 of 2016)
  • Kikungwe Issa and Others v Standard Chartered Bank Investment Corporation and Others (HCCS No. 409 of 2004)
  • R. (on application of Dixon) v Somerset CC [1997] EWHC Admin 393
  • R. (on application of Williams) v Surrey 2012 EWHC 516 (Admin)
  • R v Secretary of State for Social Services Ex p. Child Poverty Action Group [1990] 2 Q.B 540
  • R (on the application of Kides) v South Cambridgeshire DC [2002] EWCA Civ 1370
  • Aboneka Micheal & Another v Attorney General (High Court Miscellaneous Cause No. 367 of 2018)
  • R vs. INSPECTORATE OF POLLUTION, EX PARTE GREENPEACE LTD
  • Dr. Badru Ssessimba v Nakaseke District Service Commission & Nakaseke District Local Government (HCMC No. 16 of 2018)
  • Koyobe v Minister for Home Affairs 2010 (4) SA 327
  • Prime Contractors v Inspector General of Government & Another (Miscellaneous Cause No. 301 of 2013)
  • Kuluo Joseph Andres & 2 Others v Attorney General & 6 Others (Miscellaneous Cause No. 106 of 2010)
  • Dr. Kasozi Charles v Attorney General & Another (Miscellaneous Cause No. 206 of 2018)
  • KENYA REVENUE AUTHORITY vs MENGINYA SALIM MURGANI CIVIL APPEAL NO 108 OF 2009
  • Erias Lukwago v Electoral Commission (Miscellaneous Cause No. 393 of 2020)
  • Secretary of State for Education and Science v Tameside MBC [1977] A.C 1014
  • R. (on application of Unison) v Monitor [2009]EWHC 3221 (Admin)
  • Council of Civil Service Unions v Minister for the Civil Service [1985] A.C 374
  • R v North and East Devon Health Authority ex parte Coughlan [2001] QB 213

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.

Water and Environment Net work (U) Limited and 2 Others v National Environmental Management Authority and Anor (Consolidated Miscellaneous Cause No. 239 of 2020) [2021] UGHCCD 30 (7 May 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.