Greenwatch (U) Limited (Applicant) v. Attorney General and Uganda Electricity Transmission Company Ltd. (Respondents) País/Territorio Uganda Tipo de la corte Nacional - corte superior Fecha Nov 12, 2002 Fuente UNEP, InforMEA Nombre del tribunal High Court of Uganda at Kampala Juez Egonda-Ntende, F., M., S. Número de referencia HCT-00-CV-MC-0139 of 2001 Idioma Inglés Materia Energía Palabra clave Participación pública Acceso-a-la-información Derecho constitutional Producción de energía hidroeléctrica Conservación de energía/producción de energía Resumen 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). Texto completo COU-143746E.pdf Referencias Cited by Advocates Coalition for Development and Environment (ACODE) v. Attorney General Jurisprudencia | Otros | Uganda | Jul 13, 2005 Palabra clave: Ordenación forestal/conservación de montes, EIA, Public trust doctrine (doctrina del fideicomiso público), Bosques demaniales Fuente: UNEP, InforMEA Greenwatch vs. Uganda Wildlife Authority Jurisprudencia | Nacional - corte superior | Uganda | Apr 28, 2004 Palabra clave: Procedimientos judiciales/procedimientos administrativos, Cuestiones de procedimiento, Especies en peligro Fuente: UNEP, InforMEA