Wakilii

Kiiza v UMEME Limited (HCT-01-CV-CS 7 of 2022)

High Court · [2024] UGHC 935 · 2024 Judgment for Plaintiff AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
First instance civil suit for damages arising from alleged negligence
Decision
Judgment entered for the plaintiff with damages and costs awarded against UMEME Limited

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

High Court held UMEME Limited negligent for failing to immediately isolate live electricity wires after fallen poles were identified by its technical officer. The 12-year-old plaintiff, electrocuted while walking on a footpath, suffered amputation of three fingers. Contributory negligence defence rejected given plaintiff's age, inexperience, and sudden encounter with live wires in bushy area. Court awarded UGX 200,000,000 general damages plus UGX 384,000 special damages.

Outcome

Judgment entered for the plaintiff with damages and costs awarded against UMEME Limited

Facts

On 16 August 2021 at Kinyerere Trading Centre, Kyenjojo District, three rotten electricity poles carrying live wires belonging to UMEME Limited fell across a common footpath. At approximately 9:00 am, the 12-year-old plaintiff, while lawfully walking on the footpath carrying elephant grass, unaware of the fallen poles and live wires, was electrocuted and severely burnt. UMEME's Technical Officer had been notified and arrived at the scene at 8:30 am but the power was not immediately isolated. The plaintiff was taken to Kyenjojo Hospital and later Fort Portal Regional Referral Hospital where three fingers of her left hand were amputated. The plaintiff's hand is permanently disfigured and she is unable to perform normal house chores. UMEME denied negligence, claiming the poles fell due to third-party tree cutting and that the plaintiff was contributorily negligent.

Issues

  1. Whether the alleged incident was a result of the defendant's negligence.
  2. Whether the plaintiff was contributorily negligent for the injuries she suffered.
  3. What remedies are available to the parties?

Orders

  • The defendant company shall pay the plaintiff special damages of UGX 384,000.
  • The defendant company shall pay the plaintiff UGX 200,000,000 as general damages.
  • The defendant company shall pay interest on special and general damages at the court rate from the date of this judgement until payment in full.
  • The defendant company shall pay the costs of the suit to the plaintiff.

Rules and key headnotes

Negligence — Duty of Care — Electricity Distributors
An electricity distribution company owes a duty of care to the public to take reasonable steps to ensure the safety of individuals who may come into contact with its infrastructure, including power lines and electrical installations. It is reasonably foreseeable that fallen power lines could pose a significant risk of electrocution.
Negligence — Breach of Duty — Statutory Obligations under Electricity Act
An electricity licensee has a statutory duty under section 67 of the Electricity Act to repair and maintain electricity power lines. This statutory duty is owed to members of the public who may be affected by the company's infrastructure.
Negligence — Breach of Duty — Immediate Action Required After Fallen Power Lines Identified
Where an electricity company's technical officer identifies fallen power lines carrying live electricity, the company has a cardinal duty to immediately disconnect the power source, condone off the affected area, and provide adequate warnings to the public. Failure to take such timely corrective action to prevent potential harm constitutes a breach of the duty of care, regardless of the cause of the poles falling.
Contributory Negligence — Application to Children
The doctrine of contributory negligence does not inflexibly apply to young children. Negligence is a state of mind and children have insufficient mind to judge quickly as an adult. When the plaintiff is a child, allowance must be made for the child's inexperience and infirmity of judgment. An infant cannot be negligent but a minor of tender years may be able to exercise a sense of judgment and thus be liable for contributory negligence.
Contributory Negligence — Foreseeability and Children
A 12-year-old child walking on a familiar footpath while carrying elephant grass on her head in a bushy area, who encounters live electricity wires from recently fallen poles, cannot be held contributorily negligent where, given her age, exposure, and sense of judgment, she could not have seen the live wires from a distance or averted electrocution.
Special Damages — Proof
While special damages must be proved comprehensively and credibly, the proof need not necessarily be documentary or physical in nature as long as there is sufficient proof of the loss sustained which is either a direct consequence of the defendant's action or omission or such a consequence as a reasonable man would have contemplated. Where a plaintiff fails to produce documentary evidence but particularizes expenses linked to medical procedures arising from the defendant's negligence, the court may award such special damages as are contemplatable based on the particulars.
General Damages — Assessment for Amputation and Permanent Disability
General damages are awarded to restore the aggrieved person to the position they would have been in had the breach not occurred. Where a young plaintiff suffers amputation of three fingers resulting in permanent disfigurement, inability to perform house chores, mental anguish, and loss of self-esteem, a substantial award of general damages is appropriate.

Legislation cited (5)

Cases cited (22)

  • Donoghue v Stevenson [1932] AC 562
  • Ntebekaine & Another v Umeme Ltd (Civil Suit No. 258 of 2017)
  • Male Charles v Ntulume Ahmed (Civil Suit No. 416 of 2016)
  • Caparo Industries PLC v Dickman [1990] AC 605
  • Lancaster v Blackwell Colliery Co Ltd 1982 WC Rep 345
  • Sebuliba v Cooperative Bank Ltd (1982) HCB 130
  • Coulthard v Neville Russell [1998] 1 BCLC 143
  • White v Jones [1995] 2 AC 207
  • Serubiri Angelo (suing through his next friend Mike Katende) v Umeme Ltd (Civil Suit No. 469 of 2017)
  • R v Silverlock [1894] 2 QB 766
  • Atto Filder v Waibi Elijah & Another (Civil Suit No. 26 of 2013)
  • Kateralwire v Paul Lwanga [1989-90] HCB 56
  • Daniele Orere Ntebekaine & Another v Umeme Limited (Civil Suit No. 258 of 2012)
  • Sambaga v National Housing and Construction Corporation (Civil Suit No. 53 of 2016)
  • George Paul Emenyu & Another v Attorney General [1994] KALR 109
  • Acaye Richard v Saracen (Uganda) Limited & 2 Others (Civil Suit No. 63 of 2011)
  • Mugabi John v Attorney General (Civil Suit No. 133 of 2002)
  • Nasif Mujib & Another v Attorney General (Civil Suit No. 160 of 2014)
  • Lydia Mugambe v Kayita James & Another (Civil Suit No. 339 of 2020)
  • Nankabirwa v Umeme Limited (Civil Suit No. 310 of 2016)
  • Hadley v Baxendale (1854) 9 Exch 341
  • Maruri Venkata Bhaskar Reddy & Others v Bank Of India (Uganda) Ltd (Civil Suit No. 804 of 2014)

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Kiiza v UMEME Limited (HCT-01-CV-CS 7 of 2022) [2024] UGHC 935 (30 September 2024)
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.