Wakilii

Atkins Godfrey Katusabe v MTN Uganda Ltd (Civil Suit 63 of 2024)

High Court · [2025] UGHC 619 · 2025 Judgment for Plaintiff AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
First instance civil suit for breach of customer-client relationship and damages arising from deactivation of mobile phone line
Decision
Plaintiff's line ordered reactivated; nominal damages awarded; special damages and exemplary damages refused

Observed later treatment

Treatment recorded in citing cases followed in 1 Sequitur — Uganda’s citator · Derived from citing cases in the Wakilii corpus — not an assertion that this case is good law.

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.

Good law Followed in 1 case and applied in 0 cases, with no adverse treatment recorded. Derived from citing cases in the Wakilii corpus — a deterministic signal, not legal advice.

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

Held that the initial deactivation of the plaintiff's SIM card was lawful under Regulation 18 of the Regulation of Interception of Communications Regulations as the plaintiff had failed to regularize his registration details. However, the defendant breached the customer-client relationship by refusing to reactivate the line after the plaintiff presented his National ID and a Statutory Declaration proving that Atkins Katusabe and Godfrey Katusabe were the same person. A Statutory Declaration was sufficient to reconcile the name discrepancy; the defendant's insistence on a Deed Poll was arbitrary and unjustified. Nominal damages awarded.

Outcome

Plaintiff's line ordered reactivated; nominal damages awarded; special damages and exemplary damages refused

Facts

The plaintiff owned MTN line 0772693729 registered in 2013 using a Driving Licence in the names Atkins Katusabe. On 16 May 2024, MTN deactivated the line as part of a subscriber verification exercise mandated by the Regulation of Interception of Communications Regulations 2023, which required all SIM cards to be registered against National IDs. The plaintiff's National ID bore the names Godfrey Katusabe. The plaintiff visited MTN service centres and was told to provide his National ID. When he did so, MTN noted the name discrepancy and insisted he provide a Deed Poll to change his name. The plaintiff instead provided a Statutory Declaration stating that Atkins Katusabe and Godfrey Katusabe were the same person, and also produced a Parliamentary ID in the names Atkins Godfrey Katusabe. MTN refused to accept the Statutory Declaration and continued to insist on a Deed Poll. The plaintiff sued for breach of contract and damages. MTN eventually reactivated the line on 24 July 2024.

Issues

  1. Whether the Defendant breached its customer-client relationship with the Plaintiff when it deactivated his MTN number 0772693729 from the MTN network?
  2. What remedies are available to the parties?

Orders

  • It is hereby declared that the Plaintiff is legally entitled to the reactivation of his MTN line 0772693729 as he presented sufficient evidence by way of Statutory Declaration that Atkins Katusabe as identified in his Driving License and Godfrey Katusabe as identified in his National ID are one and the same person.
  • Nominal damages of UGX 5,000,000 (Five Million Shillings only) are hereby granted to the Plaintiff at 18% per annum with effect from date of this judgment till payment in full.
  • 50% costs granted to the Plaintiff.

Rules and key headnotes

Telecommunications Regulation — SIM Card Registration — Compliance with Regulatory Requirements
A telecommunications service provider is legally obligated under Regulation 18(2) and Regulation 19 of the Regulation of Interception of Communications Regulations to suspend service to customers whose SIM cards are not registered in accordance with the Regulations, regardless of whether the 180-day compliance window has expired.
Regulatory Compliance Periods — Interpretation of Time Limits
The 180-day period stipulated under Regulations 18 and 19 of the Regulation of Interception of Communications Regulations is not to be interpreted restrictively to mean that deactivation can only take place within that window; the period serves as a tool to ensure timely compliance, not to restrict enforcement to that period alone.
Customer-Client Relationship — Statutory Declaration as Proof of Identity
Where a customer presents multiple valid government-issued identification documents bearing the same photographic likeness and a Statutory Declaration reconciling name discrepancies, a telecommunications service provider acts arbitrarily and in breach of contract by insisting on a Deed Poll as a precondition for service reactivation.
Statutory Declarations Act — Evidentiary Value of Statutory Declarations
Under Section 3 of the Statutory Declarations Act, any fact deponed to in a Statutory Declaration is deemed to be the truth unless it can be proved otherwise; a service provider cannot reject a Statutory Declaration without sufficient grounds.
Change of Name — Deed Poll — Voluntary Nature
The execution of a Deed Poll under Section 36(1) of the Registration of Persons Act is purely voluntary and cannot be imposed on any person by a telecommunications service provider as a prerequisite for SIM card registration; a service provider may point out name discrepancies but must leave the customer to decide what course of action to adopt.
Special Damages — Separate Legal Personality — Corporate Losses
A plaintiff suing in his personal capacity cannot claim special damages for losses suffered by a company incorporated with limited liability, as the company is a separate legal personality capable of suing in its own right.
Nominal Damages — Infraction of Legal Right Without Real Damage
Nominal damages may be awarded where there is an infraction of a legal right even though the plaintiff's own conduct contributed to the situation; nominal damages affirm that a legal right has been infringed without awarding real compensatory damages.

Legislation cited (17)

Cases cited (9)

  • A. Nsubuga v P.N. Kavuma (1978) HCB 307
  • Provincial Insurance Company of East Africa Ltd v Mordekai Mwanga Nandwa [1995-1998] 2 EA 289
  • Salomon v Salomon [1897] AC 22
  • Stroms v Hutchinson [1905] AC 515
  • The Medina (1900) AC 115
  • Butterworth v Butterworth & Englefield [1920] P 126
  • Rookes v Bernard (1946) 6 ALL ER 367
  • Ntabgoba v Editor in Chief of the New Vision (2004) 2 EA 234
  • Martin Kizito Sserwanga v Namujju Dioniza Cissy and Another (Election Petition No. 5 of 2016)

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.

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Atkins Godfrey Katusabe v MTN Uganda Ltd (Civil Suit 63 of 2024) [2025] UGHC 619 (10 July 2025)
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.