## Facts

- Butamira Forest Reserve was established in 1929 and later leased to a sugar company for limited purposes consistent with forest-reserve status.
- In 1997, the sugar company sought to convert the reserve into a sugarcane plantation; government authorities issued a long-term (50-year) permit.
- The permit facilitated clearing forest cover and changing land use without a project brief, Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA), or an environmental impact statement.
- Local residents relied on the reserve for water, fuel, agro-forestry, and other livelihood needs; community members organized protests against the conversion.
- A government committee reportedly found the permit irregular, but a parliamentary motion later supported the company’s position.
- A public-interest NGO, acting with community members and on behalf of affected residents and other citizens, filed a constitutional/public-interest application seeking declarations that the permit and related governmental acts were unconstitutional, ultra vires, and void, and that they violated the right to a clean and healthy environment.

## Issues

1. Whether the applicants had standing to sue to protect environmental rights and natural resources on behalf of affected communities and the public.
2. Whether issuance and implementation of the long-term permit over a forest reserve breached the public-trust obligations of the State regarding natural resources.
3. Whether the environmental regulator and relevant authorities failed to perform statutory duties under environmental law, including requiring an EIA and public participation.
4. Whether the permit and the effective change of reserve status (de facto degazettement) were unconstitutional/ultra vires, and what remedies were available.

## Decision

- The court held the applicants had standing to litigate to protect the right to a clean and healthy environment and related public interests.
- The court found the State breached the public-trust doctrine by permitting conversion of a forest reserve inconsistent with the State’s trustee obligations.
- The court found statutory environmental duties were not met: no project brief or EIA was undertaken or required, and affected community views were not sought or addressed.
- The court declared the permit, if granted, null and void for noncompliance with mandatory environmental procedures.
- The court declined to issue restoration/cleanup orders against the company in this proceeding, reasoning that such orders should be directed to the party directly responsible for the environmental damage in appropriate proceedings.

## Legal Principles

- Standing in environmental rights litigation is broad: a claimant (including an NGO) may sue to prevent or remedy infringement or threatened infringement of environmental rights on behalf of others and the public.
- The State holds certain natural resources in trust for the people; governmental decisions that effectively alienate or convert protected resources without lawful safeguards breach the public trust.
- For projects likely to have significant environmental impacts, submission of a project brief, an EIA, and meaningful public participation are mandatory; failure can render resulting permits unlawful and void.
- A change in use of protected land that effectively removes its protected status can amount to de facto degazettement and is unlawful if it circumvents constitutional and statutory requirements.
- Remedial orders aimed at restoration may be limited by party joinder and responsibility; declaratory relief and invalidation of unlawful permits may be granted even where restoration is not ordered in the same proceeding.

## Conclusion

The High Court of Uganda recognized broad standing for public-interest environmental claims, applied the public-trust doctrine to a forest reserve, and declared a long-term plantation permit void because mandatory environmental assessment and community consultation requirements were ignored, while limiting restoration relief due to the procedural posture and responsible-party considerations.


Advocates Coalition for Development & Environment (ACODE) v. Att’y Gen., Misc. Cause No. 0100 of 2004 (High Ct. Uganda July 13, 2005)