Wakilii

Elayu V umeme Limited (Civil Suit No. 23 of 2022)

High Court · [2022] UGHCCD 288 · 2022 Judgment for Plaintiff AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
First instance civil suit for breach of contract and negligence. Default judgment entered under Order 9 rule 6 of the Civil Procedure Rules after defendant failed to file defence. Matter proceeded to formal proof.
Decision
Judgment entered in favour of plaintiff with declarations of breach of contract and negligence, and awards of special damages, general damages, compensation, interest and costs

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 Umeme Limited breached its contract to supply electricity and was negligent in disconnecting the plaintiff's power supply without notice or justification. The plaintiff proved special damages of UGX 52,300,000 for lost earnings from his poultry and piggery business during the 17-month disconnection period. The court awarded special damages, general damages of UGX 50,000,000 for inconvenience and suffering, compensation of UGX 20,000,000 for breach and negligence, and interest at 18% per annum.

Outcome

Judgment entered in favour of plaintiff with declarations of breach of contract and negligence, and awards of special damages, general damages, compensation, interest and costs

Facts

Around 2018, the plaintiff contracted Umeme Limited for electricity connection to his premises in Serere township where he operated poultry and piggery businesses. The connection was made on Meter No. 042261240057. The plaintiff's poultry business earned approximately UGX 2,352,941 monthly and his piggery business earned UGX 6,000,000 every six months. In August 2019, Umeme's staff disconnected the plaintiff's electricity supply without notice during fieldwork. For over 17 months, the plaintiff repeatedly approached Umeme's Soroti office seeking reconnection but was met with demands for a reconnection fee despite not being at fault. The plaintiff continued paying his electricity bills throughout the disconnection period. His businesses came to a standstill due to lack of lighting and heating for the poultry and security lighting for the piggery. Umeme only reconnected power on 10 February 2021 after being served with a notice of intention to sue. The defendant failed to file a defence and default judgment was entered.

Issues

  1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to UGX 52,300,000 alleged to be a loss of earnings due to the actions of the defendant?
  2. What are the remedies available to the plaintiff?

Orders

  • Suit found to have merit on all grounds and judgment entered in favour of the plaintiff.
  • Declared that the defendant breached the contract to constantly supply electricity to the plaintiff's premises.
  • Declared that the defendant negligently and unlawfully disconnected the electricity power supply to the plaintiff's premises.
  • Plaintiff awarded UGX 20,000,000 as compensation for breach of contract and negligence.
  • Plaintiff awarded UGX 52,300,000 as special damages.
  • Plaintiff awarded UGX 50,000,000 as general damages.
  • Plaintiff awarded interest of 18% per annum on compensation and special damages from the date of judgment till payment in full.
  • Plaintiff awarded interest of 18% per annum on general damages from the date of filing suit till payment in full.
  • No award for punitive damages made.
  • Plaintiff awarded costs of the suit.

Rules and key headnotes

Contract Law — Breach of Contract — Electricity Supply — Wrongful Disconnection Without Notice
Where an electricity supplier disconnects a customer's power supply without notice or justification while the customer continues to pay for the service, the supplier is liable for breach of contract to constantly supply electricity.
Tort Law — Negligence — Electricity Supply — Duty of Care
An electricity supplier acts negligently when it unlawfully disconnects a customer's electricity supply without notice or reason, particularly where the customer has fulfilled all payment obligations.
Damages & Quantum — Special Damages — Proof — Loss of Business Earnings
Special damages for loss of business earnings must be specifically pleaded and strictly proved. Such damages can be proved by a combination of documentary evidence and cogent verbal evidence showing both that the loss was incurred and that it was the direct result of the defendant's conduct.
Damages & Quantum — General Damages — Inconvenience and Mental Distress — Electricity Disconnection
General damages are awarded at the discretion of the court to compensate for inconveniences, mental distress, and suffering that are the direct and probable consequence of the defendant's wrongful act, including darkness at business premises, security threats, and repeated fruitless journeys to seek reconnection.
Civil Procedure — Default Judgment — Distinction Between Liquidated and Unliquidated Claims
Under Order 9 of the Civil Procedure Rules, a final judgment may be entered in respect of a liquidated demand while an interlocutory judgment is entered in respect of claims for pecuniary damages, enabling a plaintiff to proceed under Order 9 rule 6 for liquidated demands and Order 9 rule 8 for unliquidated claims in the same plaint.

Legislation cited (4)

Cases cited (12)

  • Nsubuga v Kawuma [1978] HCB 307
  • Erumiya Ebyetu v Gusberito [1985] HCB 64
  • Lloyds Forex Bureau v Securex Agencies (U) Ltd (Civil Suit No. 358 of 2012)
  • National Social Security Fund v Kisubi High School (Civil Suit No. 440 of 2011)
  • Abbey Panel & Sheet Metal Co Ltd v Barson Products [1947] 2 All ER 809
  • Hajji Asuman Mutekanga v Equator Growers (U) Ltd (Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 07 of 1992)
  • Kyambadde v Mpigi District Administration [1983] HCB 44
  • Joseph Musoke v Departed Asian Property Custodian Board and Another (Civil Appeal No. 1992) [1990-1994] 1 EA 419
  • GAPCO (U) Ltd v A.S Transporters Limited [2009] 1 HCB 6
  • Luzinda v Ssekamatte & 3 Others (Civil Suit No. 366 of 2017)
  • Fred Ssekamwa v Umeme Ltd (Civil Suit No. 26 of 2010)
  • Kampala District Land Board & George Mitala v Venansio Bamweyana (Civil Appeal No. 2 of 2007)

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Elayu V umeme Limited (Civil Suit No. 23 of 2022) [2022] UGHCCD 288 (16 February 2022)
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.