Ecolex Logo
Le portail au
droit de l'environnement
Résultats de la recherche » Jurisprudence

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

Pays/Territoire
Ouganda
Type de cour
Nationale - cour supérieure
Date
Nov 12, 2002
Source
UNEP, InforMEA
Nom du tribunal
High Court of Uganda at Kampala
Juge
Egonda-Ntende, F., M., S.
Numéro de référence
HCT-00-CV-MC-0139 of 2001
Langue
Anglais
Sujet
Énergie
Mot clé
Accès-à-l'information Droit constitutionnel Participation du public Conservation de l'énergie/production de l'énergie Production d'énergie hydroélectrique
Résumé
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).
Texte intégral
COU-143746E.pdf

Références

Cited by