The Environmental Case Law Index is a collection of judgments from 10 African countries on topics relating to environmental law, both substantive and procedural. The collection focuses on cases where an environmental interest interacts with governmental or private interests.
Get started on finding judgments that are relevant to you by browsing the topic list on the left of the screen. Click the arrows next to the topic names to reveal a detailed list of sub-topics. Most judgments are accompanied by a short summary written by subject-area expert postgraduate students from the University of Cape Town.
Read also JIFA's Environmental Country Reports for SADC
The court determined the test for applying its discretion to allow an application for an order for the production of documents during the course of proceedings as per rule 34(14) of the High Court Rules of 1980.
The applicants had previously requested for the production of some documents relating to the grant of mining leases before the trial started but made no attempt to enforce the discovery notice a year later into the proceedings. Thereafter, the applicants made a counter application for production of further documents but never pursued it. The reason for this was the belief that the fifth respondent was no longer represented in the proceedings. The applicants then launched this application against the fifth respondent.
The court made a consideration of the element of delay, insofar as it prejudiced the opposite party by preventing them to bring back their own witnesses and the materiality of the evidence in so far as it was practically conclusive.
It was held that the applicants failed to give an acceptable explanation for the delay for requesting the two sets of documents since they could not prove that they became aware of the documents sought at a later stage.
It was also held that the fifth respondent had not formally withdrawn from the case and would be prejudiced if the discovery was allowed,mainly because they could no longer bring back their witnesses and put the documents in cross-examination.
Accordingly, the application was dismissed.
This was an appeal against the judgment of the court of appeal dismissing the appeal with costs.
The grounds of the appeal were, that the court erred in holding that the loan agreement was enforceable against the appellant as guarantor in consideration of the Corporate Bodies Contract Act of United Kingdom and not the Bank of Uganda Bye-Laws of 1968. That the court erred in holding that the agreement was enforceable against the appellant although it was not executed under seal.
This was an appeal against judgment and orders of the High Court.
The respondents raised a preliminary objection of law that the appeal had been prematurely made to this court yet it ought to have been made first to the court of appeal, and a subsequent appeal to this court by the unsuccessful party.
The objection was over ruled since the appellant had complied with the requirement of first lodging the Notice of Appeal as it was then required.
This was an appeal against an ex parte judgement and decree on grounds that the learned trail judge erred in law when he failed to re-appraise the evidence of the lower court and instead relied on the same in his judgment, that he erred when he misdirected himself on the evidence thereby reaching a wrong decision and thus occasioning injustice to the appellant.
This was an appeal against judgment of the trail judge which the appellant sought to set aside and that new judgement be entered.
The appellant argued that the trail court erred when it decided the matter on issues other than those that had been raised by the parties, that he erred when he found that the appellant had no cause of action in respect of the premium yet another court had overruled this issue, and that he erred when he failed to hold that the appellant was entitled to commission from the respondent
The appellant in this appeal appealed against dismissal of the suit in which the appellant had sought for orders restraining the respondent from removing him from his office before expiry of his term.
Counsel for the respondent objected to the appeal and submitted that it be struck out for there was no decree that had been extracted, and that the Advocate had no valid Practicing Certificate. The objections were overruled on grounds that the advocate was free to draw and file documents even without a valid Practicing Certificate.
Concerning the main appeal, the ground of appeal was that the trail judge erred in holding that there was no enforceable contract of employment between the parties on the basis of a wrong finding that the respondent’s Council had no capacity to contract during the appointment of the appellant as Rector.
This appeal raises the question of admissibility of a document that was alleged to be a privileged document. The petitioner sought to have this document admitted as evidence, while the respondent argued that it should be excluded as the security of the state would be impaired.
The petitioner argued that that if this document was excluded, his constitutional right to fair trial would be violated. He further claimed that if the security of the state would be impaired by such conduct. Section 23(2) of the Constitution allows the court to hear the matters that touch on the security of the state, away from the public.
The respondent relied on s 121 of the Evidence Act. He claimed that this document relates to affairs of state and was therefore inadmissible without the consent of the head of department.
This court stated that when an act of Congress conflicts with constitutionally enshrined provisions; the Constitution prevails because it holds the paramount commands. Furthermore, it was held that the court that has the power to determine whether a matter falls within the exceptions or not. In order to do this, the state must produce evidence upon which the court can act. The state never did so.
The court examined the document in dispute and found it to relate to state security. However, the court overruled the respondent’s objection. The document was admitted as evidence in closed court.