Hon. Justice Choudry v National Water and Sewerage Corporation (Civil Appeal No. 216 of 2019) [2022] UGCA 20 (10 February 2022)
[2022] UGCA 20
Hon. Justice Choudry v National Water and Sewerage Corporation (Civil Appeal No. 216 of 2019)
Court of Appeal
· [2022] UGCA 20
· 2022
Appeal Dismissed
AI-generated summary
↓ Download
Pin to watchlist
Add to matter
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.
Judicial journey
Appeal & case history
Follow this matter from the decision below through each appellate court.
Outcome not classified
Read the higher decision to confirm the precise result.
No later appellate decision was located in the Wakilii corpus. Linked from court records and operative language in the judgments.
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 Court of Appeal dismissed a first appeal challenging the dismissal of the appellant's suit against the water authority and enforcement of an outstanding water bill. The court held that a locus in quo visit is not mandatory in non-land civil disputes; that a four-month delay in delivering judgment did not by itself render the judgment unsafe or prove failure to recollect evidence; and that the appellant failed to discharge his burden of proving negligence, particularly by not calling his expert plumber. As water after the meter is charged to the property owner under the Water Act, and the appellant admitted the leak was after the meter, the bill was enforceable and the disconnection lawful.
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; High Court judgment dismissing the suit and ordering payment of the outstanding water bill of UGX 710,569 upheld
Facts
The appellant, a property owner, sued the National Water & Sewerage Corporation alleging negligence, procedural error and unlawful disconnection of his water supply, claiming his water bills were wrongly computed and that a leak caused excessive consumption. The respondent counterclaimed for UGX 710,569 in outstanding bills. The appellant claimed an expert plumber located a leak at the meter on the G pipe, outside his premises, but did not call the expert as a witness nor provide proof of payment of an alleged UGX 300,000. The respondent's engineer testified the leak was after the meter, that no leakage existed before the meter, and that water consumed after the meter is the property owner's responsibility under the Water Act. The High Court dismissed the suit, ordered payment of the outstanding bill and costs. The appellant admitted during cross-examination that the leak was after the meter and that the meter read correctly.
Issues
- Whether the trial Judge erred by failing to visit the locus in quo.
- Whether the judgment was unsafe due to a four-month delay in delivery causing failure to recollect evidence.
- Whether the trial Judge erred in holding that the respondent's plumbers were not negligent and incompetent.
- Whether the trial Judge erred in holding the disputed water invoice of UGX 710,569 was enforceable.
- Whether the trial Judge erred in misinterpreting statutory provisions of the Water Act.
Orders
- The appeal is dismissed.
- The judgment and orders of the High Court in Civil Suit No. 257 of 2016 are upheld.
- Each party shall bear its own costs of the appeal and in the court below.
Rules and key headnotes
Civil Procedure — Locus in Quo Visits — Not Mandatory in Non-Land Disputes
A visit to the locus in quo is not mandatory in civil cases that are not land disputes; the Chief Justice's Practice Direction No.1 of 2007 requires courts to take interest in visiting the locus only in land disputes, and failure to visit in a non-land matter is not an error of law or fact.
Civil Procedure — Delay in Delivery of Judgment — Effect on Validity
A delay of four months in delivering a reserved judgment does not by itself render the judgment unsafe or establish that the trial judge failed to recollect the evidence, particularly where the appellate court and the judge rely on the certified record of proceedings; a litigant uncomfortable with delay may apply to court for earlier delivery.
Evidence — Burden of Proof — He Who Alleges Must Prove
A plaintiff bears both the legal and evidential burden of proving his case on a balance of probabilities under section 101(1) of the Evidence Act; failure to call a material expert witness on technical matters and to produce proof of alleged payments leaves the plaintiff's allegations unproven.
Tort Law — Negligence — Statutory and Common Law Duty of Care of a Service Provider
Under section 73 of the Water Act the responsibility to repair and maintain works connecting land to the authority's works rests on the land owner, and water consumed after the meter is charged to the property owner regardless of leakage; a water authority that investigates a complaint and advises the consumer to engage a plumber acts reasonably and is not in breach of any statutory or common law duty of care.
Statutory Interpretation — Water Act — Disconnection and Enforceability of Outstanding Charges
Section 95(2) of the Water Act empowers the water authority to disconnect supply where charges remain outstanding for 30 days from when due; where a consumer admits the leak was after the meter and fails to prove payment, the outstanding bill is enforceable and the disconnection lawful.
Statutory Interpretation — Appellate Review — Cannot Fault a Judge for Failing to Interpret Provisions Not Before the Court
An appellate court cannot fault a trial judge for misinterpreting statutory provisions that were never the subject of interpretation before the trial court.
Legislation cited (12)
- Water Act Cap 152 s.95(2)
- Water Act Cap 152 s.73(1)
- Water Act Cap 152 s.73(2)
- Water Act Cap 152 s.44(3)
- Water Act Cap 152 s.2(3)
- Water Act Cap 152 s.70(2)
- Water Act Cap 152 s.92
- Evidence Act Cap 6 s.101(1)
- Evidence Act Cap 6 s.43
- Judicature (Court of Appeal Rules) Directions r.30(1)
- Uganda Judicial Code of Conduct Principle 6.2
- Chief Justice's Practice Direction No.1 of 2007 para.3
Cases cited (13)
- Kifamunte Henry v Uganda (Criminal Appeal No. 10 of 1997)
- Banco Arabe Espanol v Bank of Uganda (Civil Appeal No. 8 of 1998)
- Adam Bale and 2 Others v Willy Okumu (Civil Appeal No. 21 of 2005)
- Bongole Geofrey & 4 Others v Agness Nakiwala (Civil Appeal No. 0076 of 2015)
- William Mukasa v Uganda [1964] EA 698
- Donoghue v Stevenson [1932] AC 562
- Bolam v Friern Hospital Management Committee [1957] 1 WLR 582
- Barnett v Chelsea and Kensington Hospital Management Committee [1968] 1 All ER 1068
- S. Muthu Nurayanan vs Paulary Nuicker l2 Sept. 20I8
- Anil Rai vs State Bihar
- Pandya v R [1957] EA 336
- Okeno v Republic [1972] EA 32
- Charles Bitwire v Uganda (Criminal Appeal No. 23 of 1985)
Full judgment
The original judgment as reported. Read the original PDF before relying on any passage.
Hon. Justice Choudry v National Water and Sewerage Corporation (Civil Appeal No. 216 of 2019) [2022] UGCA 20 (10 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.