Joseph Eryau v. Environmental Action Network Ltd. (No. 1)

Civil Application No. 470 of 2001, Arising from Miscellaneous Application No. 39 of 2001
Download Judgment: English

Applicant Joseph Eryau made a motion to be heard in opposition to Application No. 39/2001. The declarations being sought in the motion of Application No. 39/2001 would state that “smoking in a public place constitutes a violation of the rights of the non-smoking members of the public to a clean and healthy environment as prescribed under Article 39 of the Constitution of the Republic of Uganda and S. 4 of the National Environment Statute, 1995” and that “smoking in a public place constitutes a violation of the rights of the non-smoking members of the Public to the right to life as prescribed under Article 22 of the Constitution of Uganda.”

Mr. Eryau’s affidavit stated that he would be affected by these declarations of Application No. 39/2001. As a smoker, the declarations would “adversely infringe his rights and freedoms.” In response to this affidavit, the respondent’s attorney made an oral application requesting that Mr. Eryau be cross-examined on his affidavit. The attorney for Mr. Eryau protested, claiming the oral application should instead have been made as a motion pursuant to Rule 3 S. I No. 26/92. Respondent’s attorney argued the oral application was permissible under Order 17 Rule 2 of the Civil Procedure Rules.

The Court held in favor of the respondent, stating that the oral application was permissible and that Mr. Eryau should be ordered in for cross-examination on his affidavit. Rule 3 of S. I. No. 26 of 1992 and Rule 2 of Order 17 of the Civil Procedure Rules were not found to be mutually exclusive, and in fact were held complimentary by virtue of Rule 7 of the Statutory Instrument.

View full summary and print   |   Download summary as PDF