Wakilii

Kasaija v UMEME Limited (EDT COMPLAINT 2 of 2009)

Tribunal · [2015] UGEDT 2 · 2015 Complaint Partly Allowed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Complaint before the Electricity Disputes Tribunal alleging unjustified disconnection and failure to restore electricity supply
Decision
Complaint partly allowed with general damages awarded and costs to the complainant

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 held that UMEME Limited breached its statutory duty under the Electricity Act by failing to restore power supply to the complainant for two years from 2007 to 2009. The Tribunal found the respondent negligent in failing to detect and remedy the fault despite having systems to do so. Service charges levied during the disconnection period were lawful under section 78. The complainant was awarded general damages of UGX 1,500,000 for inconvenience suffered, though special damages were denied for lack of specific pleading and proof.

Outcome

Complaint partly allowed with general damages awarded and costs to the complainant

Facts

In mid-2007, electricity poles supplying power to the complainant's residence fell. The complainant reported the disconnection to UMEME Limited but power was not restored until February 2009, leaving him without electricity for approximately two years. During this period, UMEME continued to charge the complainant service fees. The complainant was compelled to use alternative sources of energy including paraffin, charcoal, and firewood. UMEME's witness testified that the company only received the complaint in February 2009 and immediately rectified the problem, but this contradicted the respondent's own pleadings and agreed facts which admitted the disconnection occurred in 2007. The parties agreed at scheduling that the complainant was a lawful consumer and that disconnection occurred in mid-2007.

Issues

  1. Whether the Respondent is in breach of their statutory duty and obligation?
  2. Whether the disconnection of the Complainant's power supply was done by the Respondent and if so whether it was unjustified and unreasonable?
  3. Whether the Respondent continued to charge the complainant for the electricity during the period of electricity supply cutoff?
  4. Whether the Respondent failed and or neglected to restore electricity supply to the complainant?
  5. Whether the Respondent acted in undue preference and discrimination in supply of electric power?
  6. Whether the complainant has any available remedy?

Orders

  • Complaint partly allowed.
  • Respondent found in breach of statutory duty under Electricity Act s.77(1)(a).
  • Respondent found negligent in failing to restore power supply for two years.
  • Service charges during disconnection period held lawful under Electricity Act s.78.
  • General damages of UGX 1,500,000 awarded to the complainant.
  • Special damages claim dismissed for lack of specific pleading and proof.
  • Three-quarters (3/4) of the costs awarded to the complainant, to be borne by the respondent.

Rules and key headnotes

Electricity Supply — Statutory Duty of Licensee — Obligation to Supply and Restore Power
Under section 77(1)(a) of the Electricity Act Cap.145, a licensee has a statutory duty to supply electricity to premises upon being required to do so by the owner or occupier, and failure to restore power supply for an extended period constitutes a breach of this statutory obligation.
Negligence — Definition and Application — Omission to Act as Reasonable Person Would
Negligence is the omission to do something which a reasonable person, guided by considerations which ordinarily regulate human conduct, would do, or doing something which a prudent reasonable person would not do. A utility company that fails to detect and remedy a power supply fault for two years despite having systems to detect such faults acts negligently.
Electricity Supply — Service Charges — Lawfulness During Disconnection
Under section 78 of the Electricity Act, where a supply line or electrical equipment is provided to a consumer by a licensee, the licensee may require the consumer to pay access fees and service charges for services as approved by the authority, even during periods when power supply is interrupted, provided the meter and equipment remain on the premises.
Pleadings — Departure from Pleadings — Prohibition
A party cannot be allowed to depart from its pleadings. Evidence must be consistent with pleadings. Where a party's witness testimony contradicts the party's own pleadings and agreed facts, such evidence constitutes an afterthought and must be rejected.
Special Damages — Requirement of Specific Pleading and Proof
Special damages, which compensate for proven injury or loss, must be specifically pleaded and strictly proved. Where a claimant fails to specifically plead or prove the quantum of expenditure on alternative sources of energy, special damages cannot be awarded.
General Damages — Nature and Assessment — Discretion of Court
General damages are compensatory in nature and intended to make good to the sufferer, as far as money can do so, the losses or injury suffered as the natural result of the wrong done. They cover injuries or losses for which an exact amount cannot be calculated and are at the discretion of the court. General damages do not need to be specifically claimed.
Right to Compensation — Constitutional Guarantee — Article 126(2)(c)
Article 126(2)(c) of the Constitution of Uganda provides that in adjudicating cases of both civil and criminal nature, adequate compensation shall be awarded to victims of wrongs, thereby establishing a constitutional foundation for compensatory relief.

Legislation cited (10)

  • Electricity Act Cap.145 s.11(2)(11)
  • Electricity Act Cap.145 s.77
  • Electricity Act Cap.145 s.77(1)
  • Electricity Act Cap.145 s.77(1)(a)
  • Electricity Act Cap.145 s.77(6)
  • Electricity Act Cap.145 s.77(7)
  • Electricity Act Cap.145 s.78
  • Electricity Act Cap.145 s.109
  • Electricity (Quality of Services) Regulation reg.13(i)
  • Constitution of Uganda Art.126(2)(c)

Cases cited (8)

  • Captain Harry Grandy Vs. Capeir Air Charter Ltd
  • Uganda Breweries Ltd v Uganda Railways Corporation (Civil Appeal No. 6 of 2001)
  • Celtel Uganda Ltd v Uganda Revenue Authority (HCT-00-CC-CA-0001 of 2005)
  • Blyth v Birmingham Water Works [1856] 11 Exch 781
  • Okello James v Attorney General (HCCS No. 574 of 2003)
  • MOHANLAL KAKUBHAI RADIA VS WARID TELECOM UGANDA
  • Kibimba Rice Ltd v Umar Salim (SSCCA No. 17 of 1992)
  • Adonia Tumusiime & 318 Others Vs. Bushenyi District Local government & Attorney General

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Kasaija v UMEME Limited (EDT COMPLAINT 2 of 2009) [2015] UGEDT 2 (4 February 2015)
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.