Adong v Uganda Electricity Transmission Company Limited (Civil Suit 93 of 2023)
Observed later treatment
No later-treatment classification is recorded for this judgment.
Citator coverage is limited to judgments in the Wakilii corpus and source-matched treatment records. Absence of a signal is not an assertion that the case remains good law.
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 High Court held that Uganda Electricity Transmission Company Limited violated the plaintiff's constitutional right to property under Article 26 by installing high voltage electricity transmission wires over the plaintiff's land without prior prompt payment of fair and adequate compensation. The court found that the defendant failed to follow mandatory statutory procedures under the Electricity Act and Land Acquisition Act, that the plaintiff's land was not included in the gazette notice authorising compulsory acquisition, and that the defendant was therefore a trespasser. General damages of UGX 100,000,000 were awarded, along with punitive damages of 5,000 currency points plus 10 currency points per day for continuing trespass until lawful compensation is paid.
Outcome
Judgment entered for the plaintiff with declarations, damages, and costs; defendant declared trespasser until lawful compensation paid
Facts
The plaintiff is the registered proprietor of land at Block 382 Plot 175, Nalubudde, measuring approximately 2.023 hectares, registered on 4 June 2015. The defendant implemented the Mutundwe-Entebbe 132 KV transmission line project and strung high voltage electricity wires over the plaintiff's land, rendering part of it unusable. On 5 October 2021, the plaintiff's lawyers wrote to the defendant demanding it cease operations without compensation, but the defendant continued the project. The suit was filed in March 2023. In August 2023, after the wires were already installed, the defendant offered compensation of UGX 198,848,000, which the plaintiff rejected. The plaintiff contended that the defendant did not follow constitutional and statutory procedures for compulsory acquisition. The defendant argued it had gazetted the land under Statutory Instrument No. 79 of 2016 and followed all procedures. A locus in quo visit on 28 June 2024 confirmed high voltage wires over the plaintiff's land.
Issues
- Whether the Defendant violated the Plaintiff's right to own property as enshrined under Article 26 of the Constitution of the Republic of Uganda (as amended)?
- Whether the Defendant breached its statutory mandate and authority by failing to adhere to the procedures enshrined under the law?
- Whether the Defendant is a trespasser on the suit land?
- What remedies are available to the parties?
Orders
- Declaration that the defendant breached the plaintiff's right to own property as enshrined under Article 26 of the Constitution of the Republic of Uganda 1995 (as amended).
- Declaration that the defendant breached its statutory mandate and authority by failing to adhere to procedures under the Electricity Act and Land Acquisition Act.
- Declaration that the defendant is a trespasser on land comprised in Block 382 Plot 175 at Mengo, Busiro, Nalubudde.
- General damages of UGX 100,000,000 awarded to the plaintiff.
- Punitive damages of 5,000 currency points awarded to the plaintiff for breach of constitutional right and statutory duty.
- Punitive damages of 10 currency points per day for continuing trespass from the date of judgment until lawful compensation is paid.
- Interest at 6% per annum on general and punitive damages from the date of judgment until payment in full.
- Costs of the suit awarded to the plaintiff.
Rules and key headnotes
Legislation cited (17)
- Constitution of the Republic of Uganda 1995 (as amended) Article 26
- Constitution of the Republic of Uganda 1995 (as amended) Article 237
- Electricity Act s.71
- Electricity Act s.83
- Electricity Act s.89
- Land Acquisition Act Cap 235 s.2(1)
- Land Acquisition Act Cap 235 s.3(1)
- Land Acquisition Act Cap 235 s.4
- Land Acquisition Act Cap 235 s.5(1)
- Land Acquisition Act Cap 235 s.5(3)
- Land Acquisition Act Cap 235 s.5(6)
- Land Acquisition Act Cap 235 s.6
- Land Acquisition Act Cap 235 s.6(4)(b)
- Land Act
- Evidence Act s.103
- Civil Procedure Rules Order 6 Rule 8
- Statutory Instrument No. 79 of 2016
Cases cited (11)
- Uganda National Roads Authority v Irumba Asumani & Anor (Constitutional Appeal No. 2 of 2014)
- Uganda Electricity Board v Launde Stephen Sanya (Constitutional Appeal No. 1 of 2020)
- ATTORNEY GENERAL V. ZINJ LIMITED Petition 1 of 2020
- Justine E.M.N. Lutaaya v Stirling Civil Engineering Company Limited (Civil Appeal No. 11 of 2002)
- Yungdong Industries vs Roro Services [2006] 1 MLRG 1 SC
- Henry Hidaya Ilanga v Manyema Manyoka [1961] E.A. 705
- Nance v British Colombia Electric Rly Co. Ltd (1951) A.C. 601
- Ntanda Zeli Fose vs Minister of Safety and Security,1996 (2) BCLR 232 (W)
- Obongo vs Municipal council of Kisumu [1971] EA 91
- ROOKES v. BARNARD [1964] AC 1226-7
- BMW of NORTH AMERICA V. GORE
Full judgment
The original judgment as reported. Read the original PDF before relying on any passage.