KAMPALA, UGANDA — A group of concerned citizens, including Busiro East MP Medard Sseggona and four community leaders, has filed a public interest lawsuit against several government regulatory bodies and major oil companies over the continued operation of petrol stations allegedly built in violation of environmental and urban planning laws.
The lawsuit, lodged before the High Court in Kampala, accuses the government and fuel distributors of permitting the construction and operation of petrol stations near schools, homes, markets, and places of worship often without the necessary environmental and construction approvals. The petitioners claim the developments are illegal, hazardous, and enabled by regulatory negligence.
The named defendants include the Attorney General, Kampala Capital City Authority (KCCA), National Environment Management Authority (NEMA), and companies such as TotalEnergies, Vivo Energy, Mogas, Stabex, Gas Petro, Texol, and Nestea. According to the complaint, these entities are responsible for authorizing or operating stations without valid building permits, development approvals, or pollution control licenses, as required by law.
“These stations are being built in highly populated areas, yet they lack basic compliance with environmental and safety regulations,” said one of the petitioners. “We are not just raising legal issues we’re protecting lives and communities.”
The plaintiffs are seeking several remedies from the court, including a declaration that government agencies failed in their oversight duties, a permanent ban on future construction of non-compliant fuel stations, and demolition orders for stations built illegally. They also demand UGX 500 million in general and aggravated damages, citing long-term health, safety, and environmental risks to the public.
Environmental and urban planning experts warn that locating fuel stations near residential areas and schools heightens the risk of fire outbreaks, exposure to toxic fumes, and long-term environmental degradation. The petition claims that, in many cases, "as-built" plans drawn up after unauthorized construction were used to obtain retroactive approval, bypassing established procedures.
Despite previous concerns raised by local communities, petitioners argue that both regulators and companies have continued to approve and operate these facilities without transparency or accountability.