Wakilii

Justice Anup Singh Choudry v UMEME Limited (Civil Suit 272 of 2021)

High Court · [2025] UGHCCD 35 · 2025 Judgment for Plaintiff AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Summary suit for liquidated sum alleging trespass and unlawful installation of electricity infrastructure; defendant granted unconditional leave to defend after setting aside default judgment
Decision
Judgment entered for the plaintiff; defendant found liable for trespass and ordered to pay general damages of UGX 15,000,000 and costs

Observed later treatment

Cited — treatment unverified cited in 3 (treatment unverified) 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.

No adverse treatment recorded Cited 3 times with no adverse treatment recorded; not yet tested on the merits. Citations rising — 4 citing cases on record, 4 in the most recent three data years. 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

Held that a licensed electricity distributor who upgrades electricity infrastructure from single-phase to three-phase lines without the landowner's consent or mandatory 60 days' notice under the Electricity Act commits trespass, even where the predecessor utility had existing infrastructure on the land. General damages of UGX 15,000,000 awarded; claims for special damages and punitive damages dismissed for lack of proof.

Outcome

Judgment entered for the plaintiff; defendant found liable for trespass and ordered to pay general damages of UGX 15,000,000 and costs

Facts

Plaintiff purchased leasehold property at Plot 1 Nambi Road, Entebbe in September 2008. At the time of purchase, the property had a single-phase electricity pole for domestic supply. In 2014, the defendant through its agents entered the property without consent or notice, removed the single-phase pole, and installed a three-phase high voltage electricity pole and wires. Plaintiff complained verbally in July 2014 and August 2016 but received no remedial action. From 2015, plaintiff began invoicing defendant for licence fees (UGX 955,000 per month initially, increased to UGX 2,000,000 per month from 2017), which remained unpaid. Plaintiff claimed the high voltage lines posed health and safety hazards. Defendant contended the three-phase infrastructure was installed by its predecessor before plaintiff acquired the property and that plaintiff purchased subject to existing encumbrances. Plaintiff led evidence from four witnesses; defendant led evidence from one witness, its Manager of Survey and Way Leaves.

Issues

  1. Whether the defendant is a trespasser on the plaintiff's land.
  2. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the remedies sought.

Orders

  • Judgment for the plaintiff.
  • Defendant held liable for trespass.
  • General damages of UGX 15,000,000 awarded to the plaintiff.
  • Costs of the suit awarded to the plaintiff.
  • Claim for special damages dismissed.
  • Claim for punitive damages dismissed.

Rules and key headnotes

Trespass to Land — Elements — Unauthorised Entry and Interference with Possession
Trespass to land occurs when a person makes an unauthorised entry upon land and thereby interferes, or portends to interfere, with another person's lawful possession of that land. The tort is committed against the person in actual or constructive possession of the land, not against the land itself.
Electricity Act — Statutory Powers of Entry — Notice Requirements for Non-Emergency Works
Under section 67(4) of the Electricity Act Cap 145, a licensed electricity distributor must, except for maintenance or repair of an electric supply line, give the landowner 60 days' notice before entering private land, stating as fully and accurately as possible the nature and extent of the acts intended to be done.
Electricity Act — Distinction Between Maintenance/Repair and Upgrading of Infrastructure
Upgrading electricity supply infrastructure, which involves removal of existing lines or poles and construction of new and more powerful ones, is not maintenance or repair within the meaning of section 67(4) of the Electricity Act and therefore requires the landowner's consent and 60 days' notice before entry.
Trespass to Land — Electricity Infrastructure — Upgrading Without Consent
Where a licensed electricity distributor replaces a single-phase domestic electricity pole with a three-phase high voltage pole without the landowner's consent or the statutory 60 days' notice, such entry and installation constitutes trespass, notwithstanding that the distributor's predecessor had existing infrastructure on the land.
Damages — Special Damages — Proof Required
Special damages relate to past loss calculable at the date of trial and encompass past expenses and loss of earnings arising out of special circumstances of a particular case. A claimant seeking special damages based on alleged rental arrears for unlicensed use of land must adduce concrete proof of the quantum claimed and explanation of how the sums are arrived at. A unilateral proposal for rent under a lease never agreed upon between the parties is insufficient.
Damages — Punitive Damages — Grounds for Award
Punitive or exemplary damages are awardable to punish and deter egregious, high-handed, malicious, vindictive, oppressive or malicious conduct by a defendant, or to prevent unjust enrichment. They focus on the defendant's misconduct rather than the injury or loss suffered by the plaintiff. Where no evidence is led to show such conduct, punitive damages are not awarded.

Legislation cited (5)

Cases cited (8)

  • Justice E.M.N Lutaaya v Stirling Civil Engineering Company (Civil Appeal No. 11 of 2002)
  • Mugerwa Sulaiti v Umeme Limited (Civil Suit No. 86 of 2012)
  • Umeme Ltd v Sonko & Anor (Miscellaneous Application No. 025 of 2013)
  • Odyek Alex and Anor v Gena Yokonani & 4 Ors (Civil Appeal No. 0009 of 2017)
  • Salmond and Heuston on the Law of Torts, 9th edition (London: Sweet & Maxwell, (1987) 46
  • Stewart Gawaya Tegule v KCCA & Anthony Mulindwa (Civil Suit No. 214 of 2011)
  • Mugabi John v Attorney General (Civil Suit No. 133 of 2002)
  • John Kivumbi v Kampala City Council (Civil Suit No. 1471 of 2011)

Cases citing this judgment (3)

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.

Justice Anup Singh Choudry v UMEME Limited (Civil Suit 272 of 2021) [2025] UGHCCD 35 (26 February 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.