Wakilii

Kaisabira Deo v Uganda Electricity Transmission Co. Limited (EDT COMPLAINT 44 of 2018)

Tribunal · [2021] UGEDT 2 · 2021 Complaint Dismissed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Complaint before the Electricity Disputes Tribunal seeking compensation for land allegedly affected by transmission line construction
Decision
Complaint dismissed with costs to the Respondent

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 dismissed the complaint for compensation arising from electricity transmission line construction. The Complainant failed to prove ownership of the disputed land on the balance of probabilities. Evidence showed the Respondent had conducted a feasibility study and Resettlement Action Plan in 2010, identifying and compensating three other persons as the lawful customary owners of the land with verification by the local LC1 Chairman. The Complainant's evidence contained material inconsistencies regarding the seller's name, land size, neighbours' identities, and his period of absence from the land. The Tribunal found the Complainant did not demonstrate ownership at the time the Respondent's activities took place.

Outcome

Complaint dismissed with costs to the Respondent

Facts

The Complainant claimed he purchased 1.5 acres of customary land at Katerera village, Kagadi District in 2003 for UGX 3,000,000. He alleged that between 2016 and 2018, the Respondent surveyed his land, erected transmission line poles, destroyed crops including jackfruit, avocado, coffee and banana plantations, created a road, and destroyed two graves while constructing the Hoima-Nkende transmission line. The Respondent conducted a feasibility study and Resettlement Action Plan in 2010, identifying Project Affected Persons with assistance from local authorities. Three persons—Basoberwa Rosemary, Kiiza Emmanuel, and Bwambale Sulait—were identified as owners of the disputed land, verified by the LC1 Chairman of Katerera village in February 2010, and compensated between 2010 and 2011. The Complainant did not appear in the Respondent's records as a Project Affected Person. The Complainant could not recall when he left for Bundibugyo or when he returned, claiming he left the land in the charge of the LC1 Chairman.

Issues

  1. Whether the Complainant is entitled to compensation by the Respondent for the suit land.
  2. What remedies are available to the parties.

Orders

  • Complainant's claim dismissed.
  • Costs awarded to the Respondent.

Rules and key headnotes

Evidence — Burden of Proof — Compensation Claims — Proof of Ownership
A claimant seeking compensation for land allegedly affected by a public infrastructure project must prove ownership of the land on the balance of probabilities at the time the project activities took place, including during surveys, identification of affected persons, and compensation of identified owners.
Evidence — Credibility — Material Inconsistencies and Contradictions
Where a claimant's evidence contains material inconsistencies regarding the identity of the seller, the size of land purchased, the names of neighbours, and contradictory testimony about when structures were built, coupled with inability to recall critical dates, such evidence is unreliable and insufficient to discharge the burden of proof.
Land & Property — Customary Land — Verification of Ownership — Role of Local Authorities
Where a statutory body conducting a feasibility study for a public infrastructure project identifies and verifies land owners with the assistance and endorsement of local council authorities, and those identified owners are compensated and issued notices to vacate, such verification process carries significant evidential weight in determining rightful ownership.
Administrative Law — Public Infrastructure Projects — Resettlement Action Plans — Due Diligence
A statutory body constructing electricity transmission lines that conducts a comprehensive feasibility study and Resettlement Action Plan, identifies over 2000 Project Affected Persons through ground verification with local authorities, and compensates identified owners in accordance with constitutional requirements, satisfies its due diligence obligations.

Legislation cited (1)

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Kaisabira Deo v Uganda Electricity Transmission Co. Limited (EDT COMPLAINT 44 of 2018) [2021] UGEDT 2 (26 March 2021)
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.