Ahlul (A.S) Islamic Foundation Uganda Limited (ABIFU) v Uganda Electricity Distribution Company Limited (UEDCL) & 2 Others (Civil Suit 88 of 2012)

Observed later treatment

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.

Holding

Held that the construction costs expended by the plaintiff under a rebate scheme with the Uganda Electricity Board constituted consumer deposits that vested in UEDCL as successor entity under the Public Enterprises Reform and Divestiture (Vesting of Undertaking of the Uganda Electricity Board) Statutory Instrument No. 28 of 2002. UEDCL is liable to refund USD 331,770 through rebates on electricity bills. General and aggravated damages awarded for failure to honour the rebate agreement.

Outcome

Judgment entered in favour of the Plaintiff against the 1st Defendant. 1st Defendant ordered to refund construction costs via rebates and pay damages.

Facts

In fiscal year 1997/1998, the Uganda Electricity Board (UEB) initiated a program to extend electricity coverage to rural areas through a rebate scheme. The Plaintiff entered into a contract with UEB to construct a 20km Lugolole-Ikulwe 33 KV Sub Transmission Line at a cost of USD 331,770. UEB agreed to refund the construction costs over six years through monthly rebates on the Plaintiff's electricity bills. The Plaintiff completed construction and handed over the line and associated infrastructure to UEB on 25 August 2000. A consumer account was opened in the Plaintiff's name. However, UEB failed to provide any rebates before being dissolved. In 2002, UEB's assets and liabilities were transferred to UEDCL under Statutory Instrument No. 28 of 2002. The Plaintiff continued to receive monthly electricity bills without rebates and with threats of disconnection, while UEDCL benefitted from the infrastructure the Plaintiff had constructed.

Issues

1. Whether the Plaintiff's claim or any part thereof is time barred
2. Whether the Plaintiff is entitled to a refund of USD 331,770
3. Whether the Defendants are liable for the reliefs sought by the Plaintiff
4. What remedies are available to the parties

Orders

• The 1st Defendant is liable to refund the construction costs incurred by the Plaintiff in the sum of USD 331,770, to be refunded in form of rebates of bills on the Plaintiff's account.
• The 1st Defendant is to pay general damages of UGX 30,000,000 to the Plaintiff.
• The 1st Defendant is to pay aggravated damages of UGX 20,000,000 to the Plaintiff.
• Costs of the suit to be paid to the Plaintiff by the 1st Defendant.

Rules and key headnotes

Legislation cited (3)

• Constitution of the Republic of Uganda, Article 163
• Public Enterprise Reform and Divestiture Act Cap 98
• Public Enterprises Reform and Divestiture (Vesting of Undertaking of the Uganda Electricity Board) Statutory Instrument No. 28 of 2002

Cases cited (3)

• Uganda Commercial Bank v Deo Kigozi [2002] UGCA 293
• Rookes v Barnard [1964] All ER 347
• Fredrick J. Zoabwe v Orient Bank & Others (SCCA No. 4 of 2006)

Cases citing this judgment (1)

How later Ugandan judgments in the Wakilii corpus have cited this case. Treatment labels come from Sequitur — Uganda’s citator — each backed by a verbatim span from the citing judgment, and are not an assertion that this case is, or is not, good law.

• Namutumba District Local Government and Another v Dhikusooka John (Civil Appeal No. 59 of 2018)

The original judgment as reported. Read the original PDF before relying on any passage.