Wakilii

Makubuya v Umeme (U) Limited (Civil Appeal 1 of 2019)

Supreme Court · [2023] UGSC 61 · 2023 Appeal Partly Allowed ✦ AI-generated summary ↓ Download
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Second appeal to the Supreme Court from a Court of Appeal decision that affirmed, with modifications, a High Court judgment.
Decision
Appeal partly allowed: succeeds on ground 1 (special damages of USD 2,519,557 awarded, subject to depreciation) and fails on grounds 2 and 3; general damages of UGX 300,000,000 and exemplary damages of UGX 100,000,000 upheld.

The full judgment

Read the complete, verbatim text of this judgment.

Sign in to read the full judgment

AI-generated summary. This summary was generated by AI from the full text of the judgment. It may contain errors or omissions — always read the source judgment before relying on it.

Holding

The self-represented appellant appealed the Court of Appeal's refusal to award special damages for factory machinery lost after the respondent unlawfully disconnected his electricity. By majority (Musoke JSC dissenting), the Supreme Court held that pleadings need not use the words 'special damages' once such a claim can be ascertained from them; the appellant had pleaded and proved machinery valued at USD 2,519,557 through his testimony and a valuation report. The appeal succeeded on this ground and special damages were awarded subject to depreciation. The court upheld the UGX 300,000,000 general and UGX 100,000,000 exemplary damages, holding both the High Court and the Court of Appeal had jurisdiction to assess damages.

Facts

The appellant operated a plastics manufacturing business on premises rented from BMK Industries, having purchased manufacturing machinery. A dispute arose over electricity bills owed to the respondent, which the appellant contested. The respondent disconnected the electricity supply, ultimately permanently in October 2012. The disconnection caused the appellant financial difficulty; he could not pay rent, and his landlord attached and sold the factory machinery, collapsing the business. The appellant sued, claiming the bills were unlawful and the disconnection wrongful. The trial judge found the disconnection unlawful, that the true outstanding bill was UGX 25,586,300, and referred valuation of the machines to the Electricity Disputes Tribunal, awarding general damages of 20% of the assessed value. On appeal, the Court of Appeal upheld the trial decision with modifications, awarding UGX 300,000,000 general damages and UGX 100,000,000 exemplary damages, but refused special damages for the machines, finding them neither pleaded nor proved. The appellant appealed to the Supreme Court seeking special damages of USD 2,534,107 for the lost machinery.

Issues

  1. Whether the Court of Appeal erred in holding that special damages of USD 2,534,107 for the lost machinery were neither pleaded nor proved.
  2. Whether the Court of Appeal erred in failing to refer the matter to the Electricity Disputes Tribunal to determine the value of the appellant's property for purposes of compensation.
  3. Whether the Court of Appeal erred in awarding UGX 300,000,000 as general damages for the loss of the appellant's business and goodwill.
  4. Whether the Justices of the Court of Appeal failed to properly evaluate the evidence on record.

Orders

  • The Appellant is awarded special damages equivalent to USD 2,519,557 as the proved cost of the machinery, subject to a depreciation rate over the number of years the machinery was in use before being attached and sold.
  • The award of general damages of UGX 300,000,000 as granted by the Court of Appeal is upheld.
  • The Appellant's outstanding electricity bill of UGX 25,586,300 is upheld, correcting the Court of Appeal's figure of UGX 22,586,300.
  • The outstanding electricity bill of UGX 25,586,300 is to be deducted from the general damages awarded.
  • Interest is awarded at 20% per annum on the general damages, after deduction of the outstanding bill, running from the date of the Court of Appeal judgment (30 October 2018) until payment in full.
  • The sum of UGX 100,000,000 as exemplary damages awarded by the Court of Appeal is upheld.
  • No order as to costs in the Supreme Court, the Appellant being a self-represented litigant.
  • Costs in the courts below are awarded to the Appellant.

Key headnotes

Civil Procedure — Pleadings — Special Damages — No requirement to use the words 'special damages'
A claim for special damages need not employ the words 'special damages' in the pleadings; once a claim for special damages can be ascertained from the pleadings, it is sufficiently pleaded.
Evidence — Proof of Special Damages — Strict proof by non-documentary evidence
Special damages must be strictly proved, but strict proof does not require documentary evidence; they may be proved by any direct evidence, including the testimony of the person who paid or received the sum, the fair market value of the property, or expert opinion.
Civil Procedure — Pleadings — Further and Better Particulars
A defendant who considers the particulars of a claim inadequate to prepare a defence may apply for further and better particulars under Order 6 rule 4 of the Civil Procedure Rules, and cannot later rely on the alleged inadequacy of particulars to defeat the claim where it failed to do so.
Damages & Quantum — General Damages — Appellate interference with assessment
The assessment of general damages is a matter of judicial discretion, and an appellate court will not interfere with an award unless the lower court acted on a wrong principle of law or the amount is so high or so low as to be an entirely erroneous estimate of the damages to which the plaintiff is entitled.
Civil Procedure — Jurisdiction — High Court and statutory tribunals
An Act of Parliament cannot oust the original and unlimited jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 139(1) of the Constitution; the High Court and the Electricity Disputes Tribunal have concurrent jurisdiction to assess compensation, and on appeal the Court of Appeal may exercise the High Court's assessment powers under section 11 of the Judicature Act.

Legislation cited (11)

  • Civil Procedure Rules Order 6 rule 19
  • Civil Procedure Rules Order 6 rule 24
  • Civil Procedure Rules Order 6 rule 4
  • Civil Procedure (Amendment) Rules Order 18 rule 5A(8)
  • Civil Procedure (Amendment) Rules Order 18 rule 5A(10)
  • Electricity Act 1999 (Cap 145) s.77(8)
  • Electricity Act 1999 (Cap 145) s.77(10)
  • Electricity Act 1999 (Cap 145) s.93
  • Judicature Act s.11
  • Judicature Act s.27
  • Constitution of the Republic of Uganda 1995 Article 139(1)

Cases cited (10)

  • Makubuya Enoch William (t/a Polla Plast) v Umeme Limited (Civil Application No. 9 of 2019)
  • Haji Asuman Mutekanga v Equator Growers (U) Ltd (Civil Appeal No. 7 of 1995)
  • Fang Min v Belex Tours and Travels (Civil Appeal No. 6 of 2013)
  • Uganda Commercial Bank v Deo Kigozi [2002] EA 395
  • Gapco (U) Ltd v A S Transporters (U) Ltd (Civil Appeal No. 18 of 2004)
  • Ratcliffe v Evans [1892] 2 QB 524
  • Stroms Bruks Aktiebolag v John & Peter Hutchison [1905] AC 515
  • Uganda Revenue Authority v Rabbo Enterprises (U) Ltd (Civil Appeal No. 12 of 2004)
  • Robert Coussens v Attorney General (Civil Appeal No. 8 of 1999)
  • Crown Beverages Ltd v Sendi Edward (Civil Appeal No. 1 of 2005)
Source: this page presents Wakilii’s issue analysis and metadata for a publicly reported Ugandan judgment. Any AI-generated summary is marked as such. Judgment text is sourced from the Uganda Legal Information Institute (ulii.org). Wakilii is not affiliated with ULII.