Jinja District Local Government v ESKOM (U) Limited (EDT COMPLAINT 4 of 2011)
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 Electricity Disputes Tribunal lacks jurisdiction to enforce royalty rates that have not been fixed by the Electricity Regulatory Authority under section 78(8) of the Electricity Act 1999. Where specific statutory provisions confer power on a particular body, those provisions take precedence over general jurisdictional grants. The matter was referred to ERA to fix the rates payable between the parties.
Outcome
Matter referred to Electricity Regulatory Authority to fix royalty rates
Facts
Jinja District Local Government sought orders compelling ESKOM (U) Limited to pay outstanding royalties of UGX 88,804,137 for 2003 and UGX 2,826,744,114.44 for 2004. The complainant asserted that royalty rates had been determined by ERA in a ruling dated 14 May 2004 and that the respondent had been paying according to those rates but was in arrears. The respondent denied being party to the 2004 ERA ruling, disputed the authenticity of the complainant's revenue figures, and raised a preliminary objection that the Tribunal lacked jurisdiction to enforce royalty rates that had not been determined by ERA under section 78(8) of the Electricity Act 1999. The respondent contended that rates had never been mutually agreed or determined by ERA as between the parties.
Issues
- Whether the Electricity Disputes Tribunal has jurisdiction to entertain this matter.
- Whether M/s Eskom (U) Limited, the Respondent is liable.
- Whether the Complainant is entitled to remedies sought in the complaint.
Orders
- The Tribunal has no jurisdiction to enforce rates which have not been fixed by ERA.
- This matter is referred to ERA to fix the rates payable between the parties.
- Each party shall bear its costs.
- The Complainant has a right to appeal to the High Court.
Rules and key headnotes
Legislation cited (7)
Cases cited (2)
- Athanas Kivumbi v Emmanuel Pinto (Petition No. 5 of 1981)
- Baku Raphael Obudra and Another v Attorney General (SCCA No. 1 of 2005)
Full judgment
The original judgment as reported. Read the original PDF before relying on any passage.