Kakugu Sylvan v Umeme Uganda Limited [2026] UGHCLD 57
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 court dismissed an application to hold the respondent in contempt for failing to relocate an electricity pole as decreed. Contempt requires proof that the respondent knew of a clear and unambiguous order, had the ability to comply, and lacked just cause for non-compliance. Here a conditional stay of execution had been granted and satisfied by a bank guarantee, and that stay subsisted until disposal of the respondent's pending Court of Appeal appeal; the applicant's claim that the stay had expired was rejected. Further, the respondent's operating concession had expired, making compliance legally impossible, and the co-defendant which took over the distribution network was not joined. No contempt was established.
Outcome
Contempt application dismissed with costs; no declaration, fine or damages made against the respondent
Facts
In 2014 the applicant sued Umeme (U) Limited and Uganda Electricity Distribution Company Limited for trespass onto his land at Kamuli, Kyadondo Block 230 (formerly Plot 498, now Plot 506), seeking compensation and relocation of an electricity pole and cables. On 6 April 2021 judgment was entered jointly and severally against both defendants, including an order to reposition the pole to an alternative place to be pointed out by the applicant within 90 days, together with special damages of Shs 61,200,000 and general damages of Shs 250,000,000 with interest. Both defendants appealed; the respondent's appeal is Civil Appeal No. 107 of 2022, still pending. The applicant sought to execute, and the respondent obtained a conditional stay of execution, satisfying the condition by furnishing a bank guarantee of Shs 530,736,000 from Standard Chartered Bank. The respondent later paid the decretal sum without prejudice to reduce guarantee charges, but did not relocate the pole. The applicant demanded compliance; the respondent replied on 28 February 2025 regretting non-compliance. The respondent asserted that its concession licence to operate in Uganda expired on 31 March 2025, leaving the co-defendant, which was not joined to the application, as the entity able to relocate the pole.
Issues
- Whether the respondent was in contempt of the court's judgment and decree in Civil Suit No. 2129 of 2014 by failing to reposition the electricity pole within the decreed 90 days.
- What remedies, if any, were available to the parties.
Orders
- The respondent is not in contempt of the court orders.
- Application dismissed with costs to the respondent.
Rules and key headnotes
Legislation cited (4)
- Civil Procedure Act Cap 282 s.98
- Judicature Act Cap 16 s.33 (now s.37)
- Civil Procedure Rules O.41 r.2(3)
- Civil Procedure Rules O.52 rr.1, 2 & 3
Cases cited (4)
- R v. Metropolitan Police Commissioner, Ex parte Blackburn (No 2) [1968] 2 All ER 319 (CA)
- Aiken Connections Limited v. Safaricom Limited and 2 others, Nairobi Miscellaneous Application 450 of 2012 [2013] eKLR
- Miscellaneous Application No. 424 of 2023 (ruling dated 14th April 2023)
- Misc. Application 2178 of 2022
Full judgment
The original judgment as reported. Read the original PDF before relying on any passage.