Wakilii

Eyoobia & Others v Uganda Electricity Distribution Company Limited & Others (Civil Suit 6 of 2015)

High Court · [2020] UGHC 411 · 2020 Suit Dismissed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
First instance land suit claiming trespass, compensation, eviction, and injunction arising from construction of electricity supply line on plaintiffs' alleged customary land
Decision
Suit dismissed — plaintiffs failed to prove customary ownership of the land; each party to bear its own 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

Held that plaintiffs failed to prove customary ownership of the suit land by adducing expert evidence or documentary proof as required by law, and therefore could not establish trespass. A party alleging customary tenure must prove the custom either through expert opinion or documentary evidence. Suit dismissed.

Outcome

Suit dismissed — plaintiffs failed to prove customary ownership of the land; each party to bear its own costs

Facts

115 plaintiffs claimed customary ownership of approximately 1,624,000 square metres of land stretching from Odianyadri Trading Centre to Bondo Trading Centre in Arua District. They alleged that in 2004–2005, the 1st and 3rd defendants (Uganda Electricity Distribution Company Limited and Attorney General) entered the land without consent or notice, destroyed crops and trees, and erected electricity poles and a 33KV high voltage supply line. The 2nd defendant (West Nile Rural Electrification Company Limited) subsequently took possession of the line and used it to supply electricity commercially. Plaintiffs claimed they were promised compensation by government valuers but were never compensated. They sought a declaration of trespass, eviction, permanent injunction, general damages of UGX 200,000,000, and compensation. Defendants denied trespass. The 1st defendant contended the line was constructed by Uganda Electricity Board (UEB) in the 1990s and transferred directly to the 2nd defendant under an Asset Transfer Agreement to which the 1st defendant was not a party. The 2nd defendant confirmed it received the line from UEB after construction and argued it bore no liability for government acquisition. The 3rd defendant pleaded limitation under the Civil Procedure and Limitation (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act s.3(1).

Issues

  1. Whether the Defendants trespassed on the Plaintiffs' land?
  2. What remedies are available to the parties, if any?

Orders

  • Suit dismissed.
  • Each party to bear its own costs.

Rules and key headnotes

Customary Land Tenure — Proof of Ownership
A party alleging customary ownership of land must prove the existence of the custom governing that ownership by adducing expert opinion evidence or documentary evidence where the custom is neither well-known nor capable of being judicially noticed. Bare assertion of customary ownership without supporting evidence is insufficient.
Trespass to Land — Precondition of Proof of Ownership
A cause of action in trespass to land can only succeed where the plaintiff proves actual or constructive possession of the land. Where a plaintiff fails to establish ownership or lawful possession, the action for trespass cannot be sustained.
Expert Evidence — Proof of Custom
Under s.46 of the Evidence Act, when a court has to form an opinion as to the existence of any general custom or right, the opinions of persons who would be likely to know of its existence are relevant. It is the duty of the party relying on customary law to call expert witnesses or adduce documentary evidence to prove the custom.
Burden of Proof — Balance of Probabilities
In civil proceedings the burden of proof lies on the plaintiff to prove the existence of facts on which his or her legal rights or liabilities depend on the balance of probabilities. Where the plaintiff fails to discharge this burden, the suit must fail.
Costs — Exercise of Discretion
Costs follow the event and a successful party should not be deprived of costs except for good cause. Where a court finds that a plaintiff was misguided or lacked proper understanding of the legal position, it may exercise discretion and order each party to bear its own costs.

Legislation cited (23)

Cases cited (7)

  • Justine E.M.N Lutaaya v Sterling Civil Engineering Company Ltd (Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 11 of 2002)
  • PURAW CHANDMANY Vs COLLECTOR [1957] E.A 125
  • KDLB & Awor v Venansio Babweyaka & 3 Others (Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 2 of 2007)
  • NSUBUGA VS KAVUMA (1978) HCB 307
  • Muluta Joseph v Katama Silvano (Civil Appeal No. 11 of 1999)
  • Sentongo Jimmy v Kabugo Ltd & 2 Others (Civil Suit No. 342 of 2014)
  • BUTAGIRA VS DEBORAH NAMUKASA (1992 - 1993) H.C.B 98 AT 101

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Eyoobia & Others v Uganda Electricity Distribution Company Limited & Others (Civil Suit 6 of 2015) [2020] UGHC 411 (20 February 2020)
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.