Uganda Case Law

Mukwasi General Contractors Ltd v Living Words Assembly Limited & 2 Ors

Mukwasi General Contractors Ltd v Living Words Assembly Limited & 2 Ors (CIVIL SUIT NO. 230 OF 2013) [2018] UGHCCD 101 (12 December 2018)

Court

HC: Civil Division (Uganda)

Case number

CIVIL SUIT NO. 230 OF 2013

Judge

Musa Ssekaana, J

The court found that the area in question is a mixed residential and commercial zone, and the applicable permissible noise levels are those set for general environment areas under Regulation 6(1) of the National Environment (Noise Standards and Control) Regulations, 2003: 55 decibels during the day and 45 decibels at night. The First Defendant's emission of 64.8 decibels exceeded these limits, constituting a nuisance and breach of statutory duty, and interfering with the Plaintiff's legitimate use of its property. The court held that the First Defendant must reduce and regulate its noise leve…

Source excerpt

• Nuisance
• Noise Pollution
• Breach Of Statutory Duty
• Right To Clean Environment
• Injunctive Relief
• Statutory Compliance

Mukwasi General Contractors Ltd v Living Words Assembly Limited & 2 Ors

Mukwasi General Contractors Ltd v Living Words Assembly Limited & 2 Ors (CIVIL SUIT NO. 230 OF 2013) [2018] UGHCCD 102 (12 December 2018)

Court

HC: Civil Division (Uganda)

Case number

CIVIL SUIT NO. 230 OF 2013

Judge

Musa Ssekaana, J

The High Court set permissible noise limits for a mixed-use Kampala area and ordered a church to reduce noise to 55 decibels by day and 45 at night.

• Nuisance
• Noise Pollution
• Breach Of Statutory Duty
• Negligence
• Right To Clean Environment
• Injunctive Relief

Mahera vs The Emin Pasha Ltd

Mahera vs The Emin Pasha Ltd (CIVIL SUIT NO. 78 OF 2011) [2013] UGHCCD 169 (28 June 2013)

Court

HC: Civil Division (Uganda)

Case number

CIVIL SUIT NO. 78 OF 2011

Judge

Kabiito, J

The court found that the Plaintiff had established persistent and excessive noise pollution and nuisance emanating from the Defendant's premises, which substantially interfered with her quiet enjoyment, rest, and privacy in a residential area. The Defendant's conduct was unreasonable and in willful disregard of the Plaintiff's rights, and statutory authorities had failed to enforce noise control regulations. However, the court declined to grant a permanent injunction at this stage, preferring to order compliance with relevant regulations and enforcement by authorities, with leave for the Plai…

Source excerpt

• Noise Pollution
• Nuisance
• Injunctions
• Damages
• Residential Property Rights