Greenwatch vs. Uganda Wildlife Authority

Résumé

The applicants in this case sought an order of temporary injunction against the respondents from exporting, transporting, removing or relocating any Chimpanzee from Uganda to the Peoples Republic of China or any other country in the world until the determination of the main application herein. The application followed press reports that officials of Government had already finalized plans to export Chimpanzees from their Sanctuary to Zoos in The Peoples’ Republic of China. The applicants argued that, among others, the export decision would fundamentally affect the Chimpanzees and in turn impact negatively on the environment. By removing Chimpanzees from their natural habitat and exporting them to China the respondents would violate the applicants’ right to a clean and healthy environment as enshrined in the constitution. The applicants and all other citizens of Uganda could not enjoy a clean and healthy environment unless it had all its amenities including air, water, land and mineral resources, energy including solar energy and all plant and animal life. It was estimated that there were only 5000 Chimpanzees left in Uganda and therefore any further reduction in this number significantly affected the fauna component of the environment in Uganda. The respondent contended that according to the relevant statutory provisions no court proceedings could be instituted until the expiry of forty-five days after written notice had been delivered to the respondent. No such notice as required in the Act was served on the respondent. Referring to another judgment, the court agreed with the requirement that the respondent, usually the Government or a scheduled corporation, needed sufficient period of time to investigate a case intended to be brought against it so as to be able to avoid unnecessary expense on protracted litigation. However, this rationale could not apply to a matter where the rights and freedoms of the people were about to be infringed. The people could not afford to wait forty-five days before pre-emptive action was applied by the court. They needed immediate redress. To demand from an aggrieved party a forty-five days’ notice was to condemn them to infringement of their rights and freedoms for that period which the court would not be prepared to do. Therefore, the preliminary objection by the respondent was overruled.

Texte intégral

text.asp

Références

Cites

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

Jurisprudence | Nationale - cour supérieure | Ouganda | Nov 12, 2002

Mot clé: Accès-à-l'information, Droit constitutionnel, Participation du public, Conservation de l'énergie/production de l'énergie, Production d'énergie hydroélectrique

Source: UNEP, InforMEA