Wakilii

Juma Bitalo v Attorney General and M & T Construction Limited (Civil Suit No. 0150 of 2021)

High Court · [2025] UGHC 296 · 2025 Preliminary Objection Upheld — Suit Struck Out AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Preliminary objection to jurisdiction in civil suit for trespass and compensation arising from establishment of power transmission line
Decision
Suit struck out for lack of jurisdiction

Observed later treatment

Treatment recorded in citing cases followed in 1 Sequitur — Uganda’s citator · Derived from citing cases in the Wakilii corpus — not an assertion that this case is good law.

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.

Good law Followed in 1 case and applied in 0 cases, with no adverse treatment recorded. Derived from citing cases in the Wakilii corpus — a deterministic signal, not legal advice.

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 High Court held that where a statute creates rights and liabilities and provides a specific remedy for their enforcement, that remedy must be exhausted first. The Electricity Act establishes a comprehensive dispute resolution mechanism through the Electricity Regulatory Authority and Electricity Disputes Tribunal for all electricity sector disputes. A party cannot invoke the unlimited jurisdiction of the High Court to evade the exclusive jurisdiction of an administrative tribunal. The suit was struck out for lack of jurisdiction.

Outcome

Suit struck out for lack of jurisdiction

Facts

The plaintiff owned registered land in Buikwe District. In June 2019, the Rural Electrification Agency entered his land and established a high voltage power transmission line, destroying trees and crops and depriving him of use of portions of his land. The 2nd defendant constructed the line under contract with the Rural Electrification Agency, which claimed to have secured landlords' consent. The plaintiff filed suit in the High Court seeking declarations of trespass, eviction, injunction, mesne profits, general damages and costs. The defendants raised a preliminary objection that the High Court lacked jurisdiction because the Electricity Act provides a specialised dispute resolution mechanism through the Electricity Regulatory Authority and Electricity Disputes Tribunal.

Issues

  1. Whether the High Court has jurisdiction to entertain a suit for trespass and compensation arising from establishment of a power transmission line where the Electricity Act provides for a specialised dispute resolution mechanism.
  2. Whether the plaintiff was required to first exhaust the statutory remedy under the Electricity Act before filing suit in the High Court.

Orders

  • Preliminary objection sustained.
  • Suit struck out as incompetent before the High Court.
  • Costs awarded to the 2nd defendant.

Rules and key headnotes

Administrative Law — Exclusive Jurisdiction of Tribunals — Statutory Remedies
Where a right or liability is created by statute which gives a special remedy for enforcing the same, the remedy provided by statute must be availed of in the first instance.
Administrative Law — Exclusive Jurisdiction of Tribunals — Exhaustion of Statutory Remedies
Where rights and liabilities are the creatures of a statute and a remedy is provided for the enforcement of the same, then that remedy alone can be availed of and no suit will lie before the ordinary civil court for their enforcement.
Administrative Law — Jurisdiction — Electricity Disputes Tribunal
The Electricity Disputes Tribunal has jurisdiction to hear and determine all matters relating to the electricity sector at first instance, including disputes arising from compensation claims for damage caused by establishment of power transmission lines, and the High Court has only appellate jurisdiction from decisions of the Tribunal.
Civil Procedure — Jurisdiction — Evasion of Exclusive Jurisdiction
A party cannot invoke the unlimited jurisdiction of the High Court to evade the exclusive jurisdiction of an administrative tribunal established by statute.

Legislation cited (14)

Cases cited (3)

  • Wolverhampton New Water Works Co v Hawkesford (1859) 6 CB (NS) 336
  • Dr Charles Barugahare v Makerere University and three others (H.C. Misc. Cause No. 147 of 2020)
  • Uganda Revenue Authority v Rabbo Enterprises (U) Limited and another (S.C. Civil Appeal No. 12 of 2004)

Cases citing this judgment (4)

How later Ugandan judgments in the Wakilii corpus have cited this case. Treatment labels come from Sequitur — Uganda’s citator — each backed by a verbatim span from the citing judgment, and are not an assertion that this case is, or is not, good law.

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Juma Bitalo v Attorney General and M & T Construction Limited (Civil Suit No. 0150 of 2021) [2025] UGHC 296 (15 May 2025)
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.