Nyakaana loses case against NEMA

Nov 09, 2009

THE Constitutional Court has dismissed a petition by the chairman of Kampala central division, Godfrey Nyakaana, in which he accused the National Environment Management Authority (NEMA) of illegally demolishing his house in a Bugolobi wetland.

By Edward Anyoli

THE Constitutional Court has dismissed a petition by the chairman of Kampala central division, Godfrey Nyakaana, in which he accused the National Environment Management Authority (NEMA) of illegally demolishing his house in a Bugolobi wetland.

Five judges led by Alice Mpagi-Bahigeine agreed that Nyakaana’s petition lacked merit.

The other judges were, Amos Twinomugisha, Christine Kitumba, Constance Byamugisha and Steven Kavuma.

Nyakaana was ordered to pay costs to NEMA, the Attorney General, Advocates Coalition for Development and Environment, Environment Alert, Green Watch, Uganda Wildlife Society, and Environmental Action Network. The cost is yet to be determined by the court.

The judges ruled that wetlands could not be allocated to individuals because such natural resources are protected by the state for the public.

In 2004, NEMA carried out an inspection of wetlands located in Nakawa division, and found that Nyakaana was constructing a house in a wetland.

Nyakaana petitioned the court, saying he was subjected to degrading and inhuman treatment.

He said there was unequal application of the law since his neighbours continued to develop their land in the wetland without any interference.

Nyakaana had argued that his right to own property was violated when his house was demolished without a fair hearing.

He had sought compensation from the Government.

George Kalemera and Kenneth Kakuru, who represented the Attorney General, argued that the Land Act requires a land owner in a wetland to manage and utilise it in accordance with the National Environment Act.

Christine Akello argued that Nyakaana knew about the restoration order of a wetland and was invited for a sensitisation meeting but did not comply with its regulations.

She added that the Act also stipulated that a wetland is a public resource which must be protected.

Martin Masereka, who represented Nyakaana, said they would appeal against the ruling.

Nyakaana was not in court to receive the judgment.

(adsbygoogle = window.adsbygoogle || []).push({});