Banda v Attorney General (EDT COMPLAINT 10 of 2020)
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 Electricity Disputes Tribunal has both original and appellate jurisdiction to hear all matters relating to the electricity sector under section 109 of the Electricity Act 1999, and is not limited to matters referred by the Electricity Regulatory Authority. Where a licensee enters private land and constructs power lines without the landowner's consent and without following the statutory notice requirements under section 67 of the Electricity Act, the licensee commits trespass. The Attorney General is vicariously liable for trespass committed by the Rural Electrification Agency, a government agency, and must pay compensation for destroyed property, general damages for unlawful interference with land, and interest.
Outcome
Complaint allowed with damages and costs awarded to the Complainant
Facts
In November 2019, the Rural Electrification Agency (REA), acting on behalf of the Government of Uganda, constructed a 33KV medium voltage power line through Kirwa, Kisoro District, under Islamic Development Bank funding. During construction, REA entered the complainant's freehold land (Volume HQT285, Folio 13, Block 122, Plot 5) without consent, cut down 27 mature pine trees, dug holes, and erected power line poles. The complainant obtained a temporary injunction from the Tribunal in August 2020, but REA continued the construction. REA later conducted a field inspection and admitted that the power line traversed the complainant's land and affected 27 pine trees, 1 omushaga tree, and 1 flower. REA did not give the statutory 60 days' notice required under section 67(4) of the Electricity Act 1999 before entering the land. A valuation surveyor assessed the damage at UGX 15,750,000. The Attorney General, representing REA, raised preliminary objections on jurisdiction and prematurity.
Issues
- Whether the Electricity Disputes Tribunal has jurisdiction to hear and determine the complaint without prior reference from the Electricity Regulatory Authority.
- Whether the complaint was premature for failure to lodge a claim with the Electricity Regulatory Authority under section 70 of the Electricity Act 1999.
- Whether the Rural Electrification Agency trespassed on the complainant's land.
- What remedies are available to the parties.
Orders
- The preliminary objection that the Electricity Disputes Tribunal has no jurisdiction is rejected.
- The preliminary objection that the complaint is premature is rejected.
- It is found that the Rural Electrification Agency trespassed on the complainant's land.
- The Respondent shall pay the Complainant special damages of UGX 15,750,000.
- The Respondent shall pay the Complainant general damages of UGX 100,000,000.
- Interest at 24% per annum on special damages from the date of filing until payment in full is awarded.
- Interest at 8% per annum on general damages from the date of judgment until payment in full is awarded.
- Costs of the suit are awarded to the Complainant.
Rules and key headnotes
Legislation cited (11)
- Constitution of Uganda Art.26
- Electricity Act 1999 s.5
- Electricity Act 1999 s.10
- Electricity Act 1999 s.67
- Electricity Act 1999 s.70
- Electricity Act 1999 s.109
- Electricity (Amendment) Act 2022 s.118A
- Electricity (Primary Grid Code) Regulations 2003 reg.21.0
- Electricity (Primary Grid Code) Regulations 2003 reg.21.13
- Land Act
- Land Acquisition Act
Cases cited (11)
- Friends in Need SACCO Limited v Lulume Nambi Norah (Civil Appeal No. 89 of 2019)
- Baku Raphael Obudra and Another v Attorney General (Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 1 of 2005)
- Pepper (Inspector of Taxes) v. Hart [1993] 1 All ER 42
- Davis v. Johnson [1978] 1 All ER 841
- Uganda Revenue Authority v COWI A/S (Civil Appeal No. 34 of 2020)
- Uganda v Kusemererwa Julius (High Court Criminal Case No. HCT-01-CR-SC-0015 of 2014)
- Pius Owor (EDT Complaint No. 017 of 2023)
- Ruzinda Jackson and 3 Others v Rural Electrification Agency and 2 Others (Civil Suit No. 20 of 2021)
- Justine E.M.N. Lutaya v Sterling Civil Engineering (Civil Appeal No. 11 of 2002)
- Annet Nakaleme Kironde v Apollo Kaddu Mukasa Kironde and Another (Divorce Cause No. 6 of 2001)
- Begumisa Financial Services Ltd Vs. General Holding Ltd and Anor. [2007] EA 28
Full judgment
The original judgment as reported. Read the original PDF before relying on any passage.