Wakilii

Habib Sembatya v UMEME Limited (Complaint Number EDT 10 of 2014)

Tribunal · [2017] UGEDT 2 · 2017 Complaint Allowed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Complaint before the Electricity Disputes Tribunal for trespass to land and damage to property arising from installation of electricity wires
Decision
Complaint allowed with damages, interest, and costs awarded to the complainant.

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 UMEME Limited trespassed on the complainant's land by projecting electricity wires over his house without consent to connect a neighbour, and damaged his mango tree by cutting branches. The complainant and his family suffered fear and apprehension from the overhead wires. General damages of UGX 10,000,000 were awarded for trespass, mental apprehension, and damage to the mango tree, with interest at 24% per annum until payment in full and costs to the complainant.

Outcome

Complaint allowed with damages, interest, and costs awarded to the complainant.

Facts

On or about 4 October 2013, UMEME Limited's personnel trespassed on Habib Sembatya's residential land at Bulonde Village, Wakiso District, by connecting electricity wires over his house to supply power to his neighbour, Mutesasira, without Sembatya's consent. UMEME's personnel also cut five branches from Sembatya's mango tree to facilitate the wire installation. Sembatya complained to UMEME's area manager at Najjanankumbi on 10 October 2013. An engineer, Nsamba, confirmed the trespass and apologised, stating no consent was on file. The neighbour offered compensation for the tree and continued wire passage, which Sembatya rejected. On 10 March 2014, after Sembatya filed his complaint with the Tribunal on 2 April 2014, UMEME removed the wires from over his house. Sembatya and his family lived in fear of electric shocks during the period the wires were overhead.

Issues

  1. Whether there was trespass on the Complainant's land.
  2. Whether the Complainant is entitled to the remedies prayed for.

Orders

  • General damages of UGX 10,000,000 awarded to the complainant for trespass, mental apprehension from fear of electric shocks, and damage to the mango tree.
  • Interest at 24% per annum on the damages awarded until payment in full.
  • Costs of the complaint awarded to the complainant.

Rules and key headnotes

Trespass to Land — Elements — Projection of Objects Over Land
Trespass to land consists of entering upon land in possession of another, remaining upon such land, or placing or projecting any object on it or over it, in each case without the consent, permission, licence, or leave of the person in possession or lawful justification.
Trespass to Land — Airspace — Projection of Electricity Wires
Trespass to land includes trespass in the airspace above land. Projecting electricity wires over a person's house without consent constitutes trespass, regardless of whether the person also receives electricity from the same pole.
Trespass to Land — Possession — Requirement for Action
To maintain an action for trespass to land, the complainant must be in possession or have a present right to possession of the land in issue.
Damages — General Damages — Assessment
General damages are damages that the law presumes follow from the wrong complained of and need not be specifically claimed or set out in pleadings. The measure of general damages ought to be real and tangible, assessed with reference to the general economic and social state of affairs in the country.
Trespass to Land — Remedies — Subsequent Removal of Trespass
The subsequent removal of a trespassing object does not extinguish the fact of trespass or the right to damages for the period during which the trespass occurred.

Legislation cited (1)

  • Electricity Disputes Tribunal (Procedure) Rules 2012 Regulation 20(a)(b)

Cases cited (4)

  • Sawuya Nakate v Alooyzio Kamenyero (1976) HCB 14
  • Justine E.M.N Lutaya v Stirling Civil Engineering Company Ltd (Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 11 of 2002)
  • Kalson v Imperial Tobacco Co. Ltd [1957] QB 334
  • David Tyamulyeme v Attorney General (Court of Appeal Civil Appeal No. 81 of 2006)

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Habib Sembatya v UMEME Limited (Complaint Number EDT 10 of 2014) [2017] UGEDT 2 (13 March 2017)
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.