News
High Court dismisses case against NEMA over Kansanga Wetland
“In the circumstances and having regard to the positive steps already taken by the respondents in exercise of their statutory mandate, the applicant is not entitled to the remedies sought as this application is dismissed with no orders as to costs,” Justice Kinobe said.
Justice Simon Peter Kinobe, in a ruling delivered on September 1, 2026, dismissed the application, which sought a declaration that NEMA had breached its statutory duty to protect the environment. (File Photo)
By: Edward Anyoli, Journalist @New Vision
KAMPALA - The Civil Division of the High Court has dismissed an application challenging the National Environment Management Authority (NEMA) over allegations that it failed to protect Kansanga Wetland.
Justice Simon Peter Kinobe, in a ruling delivered on September 1, 2026, dismissed the application, which sought a declaration that NEMA had breached its statutory duty to protect the environment.
The applicant, Joyce Nafula, argued that NEMA's failure to protect the wetland amounted to a violation of the right to a clean and healthy environment.
Nafula, a resident of Nakabago cell and a frequent user of the area where Kansanga Wetland is located, filed the case as a concerned citizen. She sued the National Environment Management Authority (NEMA), Kampala Capital City Authority (KCCA) and the Commissioner for Land Registration.
Nafula said she became concerned after observing individuals fencing off parts of the wetland and dividing the land into plots. When she made inquiries, she was told that the plots belonged to private individuals.
In response, NEMA, through its lawyer, said the Authority had taken firm steps to prosecute all those found encroaching on the wetland.
Nafula said she became concerned after observing individuals fencing off parts of the wetland and dividing the land into plots. When she made inquiries, she was told that the plots belonged to private individuals.
In response, NEMA, through its lawyer, said the Authority had taken firm steps to prosecute all those found encroaching on the wetland.
NEMA further argued that in May and June 2010, the Policy Committee on Environment inspected the wetland and assessed the key issues affecting it.
The committee recommended that the area be mapped and marked with beacons, with maps produced as a positive and responsible step towards protecting the environment.
In his ruling, Justice Kinobe agreed with NEMA, KCCA and the Commissioner for Land Registration, saying commendable efforts had been made to protect the wetland. He said the applicant was not entitled to the remedies sought and subsequently dismissed the case.
Justice Kinobe also noted that NEMA had issued a restoration order to all encroachers on Kansanga Wetland, directing them to immediately stop all activities within the wetland, vacate the area, demolish any structures they had erected, remove dumped soil and murram, and restore the wetland as close as possible to its original state. He said the measures taken by NEMA were appropriate.
“In the circumstances and having regard to the positive steps already taken by the respondents in exercise of their statutory mandate, the applicant is not entitled to the remedies sought as this application is dismissed with no orders as to costs,” Justice Kinobe said.
The committee recommended that the area be mapped and marked with beacons, with maps produced as a positive and responsible step towards protecting the environment.
In his ruling, Justice Kinobe agreed with NEMA, KCCA and the Commissioner for Land Registration, saying commendable efforts had been made to protect the wetland. He said the applicant was not entitled to the remedies sought and subsequently dismissed the case.
Justice Kinobe also noted that NEMA had issued a restoration order to all encroachers on Kansanga Wetland, directing them to immediately stop all activities within the wetland, vacate the area, demolish any structures they had erected, remove dumped soil and murram, and restore the wetland as close as possible to its original state. He said the measures taken by NEMA were appropriate.
“In the circumstances and having regard to the positive steps already taken by the respondents in exercise of their statutory mandate, the applicant is not entitled to the remedies sought as this application is dismissed with no orders as to costs,” Justice Kinobe said.