Litigation

Public interest litigation has been defined as any litigation conducted for the benefit of public or for removal of some public grievance.

Greenwatch uses this strategy to bring to notice, any action or activity that has, will have, or is likely to have negative impact on the environment and to raise or create awareness of the people's environmental rights.

  The major objectives of strategic litigation are:

• To strengthen the existing legal framework/structure for the management of natural resources and environmental regulations that are under-utilized.

• To re-define environmental rights.

• To raise awareness and foster public discussion about crucial environmental issues.

Public interest litigation is however used as a last resort after all other possible avenues are exhausted in order to bring about pressure for social and legislative change. Although it is difficult to implement, strategic litigation has registered some success in the past years. Refer to cases under the Resources section

  Progress on current cases

GREENWATCH V ATTORNEY GENERAL, NFA AND NEMA

The plaintiffs, Greenwatch instituted this suit against the defendants, Attorney General, National Forestry Authority and National Environmental Management Authority. 

Brief Facts:

The plaintiff instituted this suit against the defendant’s on grounds amongst others that the defendants had failed in their duty to uphold the citizen’s right to a clean and healthy environment and neglected their duties as public trustees hence putting the right to a clean and healthy environment for both the present and the future generations at risk, that the defendants have failed to take measures to curb the rapid loss of forest cover in Uganda and thus triggering off climate change and its associated effects on the livelihoods of Ugandans and the future generations to come and that the defendants have failed to take measures to curb the rapid loss of forest cover in Uganda thus leading to increased pollution of ground and surface water sources resulting into increased incidences of water borne diseases

The plaintiffs hence prayed for declarations and orders as hereunder.

Declarations that;

• The government of Uganda holds natural resources in trust for the people of Uganda

• The rapid loss of forest cover in Uganda is a result of the defendants failing to uphold their duty of preserving the environment and natural resources entrusted to them under the constitution.

• The defendant’s failure to curtail forest cover loss is a violation of the citizen’s right to a clean and healthy environment.

• The defendants’ failure to curtail forest cover loss is violation of the right to life especially for the indigenous communities that are forest-dependent.

And orders;

• That the defendants put in place forest management plans that are in line with the current National development agenda, escalating pressures on forest resources and forestlands and emerging global forestry-related instruments.

• Directing the government of Uganda to increase funding and human resource personnel of environmental government agencies and the institutional framework for management of forests.

• Directing the defendants to put in place guidelines and implementation of the same to ensure that commercial exploitation of forests is carried out in accordance with the principle of optimum sustainable yield.

• Directing the defendants to put in place guidelines and legal framework for regulating private natural forests.

• Directing the defendants within their legal mandate to effectively and satisfactorily execute and implement the already existing policies and guidelines set forth within the existing laws, at levels sufficient to effectively combat forest cover loss in Uganda.

• Directing defendants to conduct documented regular sensitization and engagement of local communities in sustainable forest management principles.

• Directing the defendants to regulate rights of private natural forest owners to ensure there is no impairment of ecological functions that are of relevance to social welfare.

Chronological flow of actions taken

8th January, 2021	Filed the plaint
3rd march 2021	Filed an affidavit of service for summons to file a defence
3rd March 2021	Extracted summons for directions
22nd March 2021	Filed an affidavit of service for summons for directions
6th April 2021	Extracted hearing notices
15th April 2021	Filed an affidavit of service for the hearing notices
1st July 2021	Matter could not proceed due to national lockdown caused by COVID 19 pandemic
19th August 2021	Extracted hearing notices
25th August 2021	Filed an affidavit of service for hearing notices
24th November 2021	Extracted hearing notices
23rd March 2022	Matter up for mention but trial judge absent
29th March 2022	Wrote a letter requesting that a new hearing date be fixed.
7th April 2022	Extracted hearing notices.
16th November 2022	Filed a letter requesting for a hearing date.
16th November 2022	Filed Miscellaneous Application number 0636
14th February 2023	Extracted hearing notices for Miscellaneous Application number 0636
2nd June 2023	Filed an affidavit of service in Miscellaneous application number 0636
15th June 2023	Filed an amended plaint
10th August 2023	Served a copy of the Joint Scheduling Memorandum on the defendants for their input.
14th September 2023	Received an application for leave to intervene as Amicus Curiae by National Associaton of Professional Environmentalists (NAPE)
Date set for hearing – 25th June 2024	Next action to be taken- Write and file a letter requesting for a much closer date

NISI MBABAZI & 4 OTHERS V ATTORNEY GENERAL

Brief facts

The Plaintiffs Nisi Mbabazi, Jonathan Aruho, Matayo Natumanya, Kind David Tandeka (all minors suing through their next friend Kenneth Kakuru, replaced by Samantha Atukunda Kakuru Mwesigwa), on their own behalf and that of born and unborn children of Uganda and in public interest instituted this suit in 2012 together with Greenwatch against the Attorney General and the National Environmental Management Authority (NEMA).

It follows the Plaintiffs’ grievances resulting from the Defendants’ omissions characterized by failure to combat climate change and its effects whose impacts are harmful to the plaintiffs as minors and general human life.

The omissions among others include the government’s failure to implement any of the major adaptation measures proposed and suggested by researchers and policy makers thereby causing immense harm and suffering to Ugandans that includes but is not limited to loss of life, property and livelihoods. The plaintiffs further allege that unless immediate action is taken, the harm and suffering will worsen in the future thus putting the lives of the plaintiffs and other people at peril despite no fault of their own.

Prayers

The plaintiffs hence prayed for among others orders that the Defendants implement measures that will reduce the impact of climate change, an order directing the Defendants to conduct an updated carbon accounting and develop a climate change mitigation plan in accordance with best available science, an order directing the Defendants to implement International conventions, treaties and protocols on climate change, an order directing the defendants to take measures to protect the plaintiffs and children of Uganda from effects of climate change and specifically extreme climatic conditions such as floods and an order directing government to compensate victims of climate change and to take appropriate measures to curtail and prevent re-occurrence.

Chronological flow of actions taken

Date	Status
20th September 2012	Filed the plaint and extracted summons Case given hearing date for 30th April 2014
27th September 2012	Served summons on the Attorney General
30th April 2014	Case adjourned to 6th November 2014 To file Joint scheduling Memorandum on 31st July 2014 Mention on 18th August 2014
23rd May 2014	Delivered a letter to Uganda Mediation Chambers
28th May 2014	Received a response from UMC
29th May 2014	Served Attorney General
2nd June 2014	First mediation meeting held at UMC File mediation summary by 5th June 2014
12th June 2014	Notice delivered to the civil registry Letter served on the UMC
12th August 2014	Filed Joint Scheduling Memorandum
13th August 2014	Served the Attorney General with the copy of the letter from the registrar
18th August 2014	Appeared in court to report on the prospects of mediation
6th November 2014	Appeared in Court Preliminary hearing Set a date for mention, 3rd May 2015
28th January 2015	Meeting with Dr. Lwasa
5th May 2015	Matter up for mention Counsel for defendant not in court Matter adjourned to 11th June 2015
11th June 2015	Matter up for mention  Court advises plaintiff counsel to ensure parties sued are the right ones File an amended plaint Further mention set for 17th August 2015 at 9:00am
12th August 2015	Filed hearing notices
13th August 2015	Picked up the hearing notices and served them on the Attorney General
15th September 2015	Appeared in court for mention however matter was adjourned to 16th November 2015 to enable parties file Joint Scheduling Memorandum
16th November 2015	Appeared in court, matter adjourned to 14th March 2016 Hearing of plaintiff’s case on 16th March, 2016 Hearing defendant’s case on 30th March,2016. Report on mediation progress and file Joint Scheduling Memorandum before 25th December, 2015.
17th August 2015	Appeared in court Counsel for plaintiffs to file an amended plaint and serve the same to the Attorney General for signing(consent) Mention set for 15th September 2015 at 9:00am Judge to refer case for mediation
21st December 2015	Appeared for mediation, however, it was pushed to 14th March 2016 at 9:00 am
4th September 2017	Appeared before Justice H.Walayo Plaintiff not in court Counsel for 1st defendant in court Counsel for 2nd defendant not in court Hearing date set for the 12th March 2018 Witness statements to be filed before 12th March 2018
13th March 2018	Appeared in court but judge was away on criminal session in Kumi. Matter adjourned to 27th June 2018 at 9:00am
14th November, 2018	Before Hon. Justice Walayo Counsel requested to evaluate the evidence of the defendants Counsel for the plaintiff granted their request Matter adjourned to 11th April, 2019 at 9:00am
11th April 2019	Matter adjourned to 14th May, 2019 for examination of witnesses Defendants to file their trial bundle
14th April 2019	Matter adjourned to 22nd August 2019 at 9:00am for hearing of plaintiffs’ witnesses
22nd August 2019	Before Justice Walayo.H Matter adjourned for settlement on 6th November 2019 at 9:00am
6th November 2019	Matter adjourned to 22nd January 2020 for hearing
22nd January 2020	Trial Judge was transferred and new judge not on station yet. Matter adjourned to 24th March 2020 at 9:00am for hearing
March 2020	Country in lockdown (Presidential directive) due to the COVID-19 Pandemic
10th June 2020	Extracted a hearing notice for 13th July 2020
16th and 17th June 2020	Served hearing notice for 13th July 2020
13th July 2020	Before justice Michael Elubo Attorney General absent, counsel holding brief asked for adjourment Matter adjourned to 30th November, 2020 at 10:00am
30th November 2020	Trial judge absent Matter adjourned to 12th and 19th January 2021 at 11: 00am
12th January 2021	Both parties absent Matter adjourned to 17th June 2021 to enable court prepare for video conferencing
13th April 2021	Extracted Hearing Notices for 17th June 2021
17th June 2021	Due to lockdown for 42 days starting 7th June 2021, case couldn’t be heard
9th august 2021	Wrote a letter to court asking for a new date.
25th November 2021	Extracted Hearing Notices for 21st March 2022
26th November 2021	Served the defendant with the Hearing Notices
21st March 2022	Trial judge absent
23rd March 2022	Wrote to court requesting for a new date
17th May 2022	Extracted Hearing Notices for 3rd October 2022 at 9:00AM
18th May 2022	Served the Hearing Notices on the defendant
2nd November 2022	Printed out hearing notices issued on ECCMIS by J. Singiza K. Douglas, and served a copy thereof on each of the Defendants. Next Hearing date on 28/11/2022
4th November 2022	Drafted an affidavit of service in respect of the hearing notice issued by J. Singiza K. --- Douglas and filed it on ECCMIS upon payment of the requisite fees
28th November 2022	J. Singiza asked for a letter explaining why the case has delayed to be concluded
2nd December 2022	A letter explaining why the case has taken long to be concluded was filed at court
4th January 2023	Served hearing notices on the defendants Next hearing date: 17th January, 2023
10th January, 2023	Served a letter (explaining why the case has taken quite long to be concluded) on the defendants
17th January, 2023	Court hearing Witness statements expunged from record Court directed the plaintiffs to file submissions by 7/2/2023
14th February, 2023	Filed the plaintiffs’ submissions and served the same on both the 1st and 2nd Defendant
15th June, 2023	Appeared in court for directions All directions given on the 17th of January were expunged All witness statements reinstated All documents reinstated Plaintiffs directed to file application after electing a new next of friend To appear in court to hear the application on 21/06/2023 Date for mention to be given then
21st July 2023	Appeared in court for application for next of friend Judge not available.
6th July 2023	Appeared in court for application for next of friend. Application was allowed and parties directed to amend their pleadings
30th November 2023	Judge on leave. Matter adjourned to 13th May 2024
13th May 2024	Second allowed second defendant’s prayer to amend their pleadings Matter adjourned to 19th September 2024

TSAMA WILLIAM & 47 OTHERS V ATTORNEY GENERAL AND 2 OTHERS

The Applicants, Tsama William and 47 others instituted the suit against the Respondents; Attorney General, National Environmental Management Authority and Bududa Local Government Council.

Brief facts

The Applicants are victims of landslides that occurred on the 3^rd day of December 2019 in Bushika sub-county, Bududa district. As a result, the Applicants were displaced from their homes, lost twenty of their relatives and further, the landslides caused destruction of property and the environment. Being aggrieved by the facts as stated, the Applicants instituted this suit against the Respondents for breach of their obligations under national law to put in place an effective machinery for dealing with natural disasters such as landslides, this breach resulted into violation of the applicants’ fundamental human rights.

The Applicants sought for orders amongst others, declarations that their rights to life, own property, physical and mental health, and a clean and healthy environment as enshrined under the 1995 constitution of Uganda were violated and infringed by the occurrence of the stated landslides, a declaration that Respondents are responsible for the said violations and infringement plus an order that the respondents put in place an effective machinery for dealing with landslides in Bududa district to prevent re-occurrence of the above stated tragedies.

Further and resulting from the stated violation and infringement, the Applicants prayed for compensation and general damages against the first Respondent to families of the twenty victims killed by the land slides, other violations as there-above stated and for resettlement of the victims to safer areas.

Representation

The matter was initially being handled by BNB Advocates who in the year of 2022, requested Greenwatch to take over the same. Greenwatch instructed its lawyers “Kakuru & Co. Advocates” to take over the matter and a notice of change of Advocates was filed in the same year. 

Filing

The matter was filed on the 14^th day of October 2020.

Final submissions

Final submissions in the matter were filed on the 7^th day of September 2021.

Current status

The matter is pending judgment.

Action taken

On the 5^th day of October 2023, Greenwatch through its lawyers wrote a letter addressed to the Deputy Registrar, High Court of Uganda at Mbale notifying the Deputy registrar of the delay in delivery of judgment in the matter and requesting that the same be delivered as soon as possible considering the nature of the claim and the fact that if the respondents are found in breach of their duties as stated in the miscellaneous cause, delay to deliver judgment implies delay by the government to take remedial action to prevent an occurrence of similar tragedies. 

Unfortunately, no response has been made regarding the afore-mentioned letter addressed to the Deputy Registrar.