Wakilii

Elementary Energy Limited v Electricity Regulatory Authority (Miscellaneous Application 1 of 2022)

Tribunal · [2022] UGEDT 2 · 2022 Application Partly Allowed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Application for discovery of documents arising from consolidated complaints before the Electricity Disputes Tribunal
Decision
Application partly allowed with specific documents ordered to be produced; other documents declined

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 Tribunal held that it has discretionary power to order discovery of documents under Rule 37 of the Electricity Disputes Tribunal (Procedure) Rules 2012 and Order 10 Rule 12 of the Civil Procedure Rules. Discovery will be granted where documents are in the possession of the respondent, relevant to matters in issue, and necessary for fair disposal of the dispute. The Tribunal will deny discovery if it constitutes a fishing expedition or is intended to annoy or oppress. The application was partly granted, ordering production of specific documents relating to board meetings and the acting CEO's appointment.

Outcome

Application partly allowed with specific documents ordered to be produced; other documents declined

Facts

Elementary Energy Limited applied to the Electricity Disputes Tribunal for an order compelling the Electricity Regulatory Authority to produce certain documents. The application arose from consolidated Complaints Nos. 21 and 22 of 2019. The applicant sought 37 categories of documents by letter dated 24 January 2022, including bank statements, certified copies of regulatory notices, correspondence, instruments of appointment of ERA officials, and records of ERA board meetings. The respondent opposed the application, contending that some documents had already been provided, others did not exist, and the remainder were not in issue or relevant. The applicant argued the documents were necessary to verify equity payments made to ERA, determine the legality of Notices to Show Cause issued in 2019, and assess whether ERA board meetings were conducted in accordance with the Electricity Act.

Issues

  1. Whether the application contains grounds for the grant of an order of discovery.
  2. Whether there are any remedies available.

Orders

  • Item 25 — A copy of official terms and conditions or instrument of delegation of Mr. Edward Iruura as Acting Chief Executive Officer to be produced.
  • Items 31–37 — Notices calling meetings referred to in paragraphs 31–37 of Annexture A to be produced.
  • Items 31–37 — Attendance lists of the meetings to be produced.
  • Items 31–37 — Copies of agenda of the meetings to be produced.
  • Items 31–37 — Certified copies of extracts of signed minutes relating only to the subject matter plus signatories to be produced.
  • Items 1, 2, 7–12, 13–15, 16, 17–24, 26–27, 29, 30 — Application for discovery declined.
  • Items 4 and 5 — Application declined as documents are correspondences already in possession of both parties.
  • Costs to be in the main cause.

Rules and key headnotes

Discovery — Tribunal's Discretionary Power — Electricity Disputes Tribunal
The Electricity Disputes Tribunal has power under Rule 37 of the Electricity Disputes Tribunal (Procedure) Rules 2012 to order any person to produce documents relevant to matters before it, and this power is discretionary and may be withheld in non-deserving cases.
Discovery — Conditions for Grant — Possession and Relevance
Before granting an order for discovery, the Tribunal must satisfy itself that the documents are in possession of the respondent and that the documents relate to or are relevant to the matter in issue.
Discovery — Fishing Expedition — Bad Faith
A court or tribunal will deny discovery if the party is using it as a fishing expedition to ascertain information for the purpose of starting an action or developing a defence, or if it is intended to annoy, embarrass, oppress or injure the parties or witnesses.
Cross-Examination — Scope — Not Limited to Witness Statement
Cross-examination is a broad exercise not limited to any documents or matter referred to in the witness's testimony, and the opposite party has no capacity to limit the scope of cross-examination.
Statutory Bodies — Board Meetings — Compliance with Statutory Requirements
Where a statute and its schedules stipulate requirements for meetings of a statutory authority including quorum, minutes and decision-making procedures, strict compliance with those provisions is contemplated, and documents evidencing compliance with those requirements are relevant to determining the legality and regularity of decisions made at such meetings.

Legislation cited (13)

Cases cited (2)

  • Hon. Gerald Kafureka Karuhanga and Another v Attorney General and 2 Others (High Court Miscellaneous Cause No. 60 of 2015)
  • Patricia Mutesi v Attorney General (Miscellaneous Application No. 0912 of 2016)

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Elementary Energy Limited v Electricity Regulatory Authority (Miscellaneous Application 1 of 2022) [2022] UGEDT 2 (16 May 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.