Ecolex Logo
The gateway to
environmental law
Search results » Jurisprudence

Greenwatch (U) Limited (Applicant) v. Attorney General and Uganda Electricity Transmission Company Ltd. (Respondents)

Country/Territory
Uganda
Type of court
National - higher court
Date
Nov 12, 2002
Source
UNEP, InforMEA
Court name
High Court of Uganda at Kampala
Judge
Egonda-Ntende, F., M., S.
Reference number
HCT-00-CV-MC-0139 of 2001
Language
English
Subject
Energy
Keyword
Constitutional law Public participation Access-to-information Hydropower generation Energy conservation/energy production
Abstract
The Government of Uganda entered into a series of agreements, them main agreement being the implementation Agreement, with the AES Nile Power Limited covering the building, operation and transfer of a hydro electric power complex on the River Nile, Uganda. In addition, in consequence of the Implementation Agreement, a Power Purchase Agreement (PPA) was executed by AES Nile Power Limited and Uganda Electricity Board, established and wholly owned by the Government of Uganda, with the commercial monopoly to generate, transmit and sell electric current in Uganda. The Government made undertakings to the parties not to divulge the said agreements to the public. Doing otherwise would impair the economic credibility and sovereignty of Uganda, and would also amount to a breach of the State of its commitments under the said agreement, as the agreement contained clauses on confidentiality and protection of intellectual property of the sponsor. The applicant sought to obtain a copy of the PPA from the Government of Uganda in vain and commenced this action. The applicant stated that he was entitled under Article 41 of the Constitution to have access to information that was in the hands of the state. The court held the PPA had been signed by the Minister of Energy and Mineral Development within her official capacities and therefore was a pubic document. Moreover, the PPA was incorporated by reference into the Implementation Agreement and was in the hands of the Government. The respondent did not disclose how the disclosure to the public of the agreement in question would affect the sovereignty of the state. The court thus rejected this claim made by the respondent. The applicant had not shown that it qualified as a corporate citizen though, and therefore it had not proven that it was qualified as a citizen under article 41 of the Constitution to have access to information. Therefore the application was allowed in part (referring to declaration that the PPA was a public document) and dismissed in part (referring to the right of access to information).
Full text
COU-143746E.pdf

References

Cited by