Wakilii

Kwesiga v Uganda Electricity Distribution Co. Limited and 2 Others (MISCELLENOUS APPLICANT EDT 19 of 2014)

Industrial Court · [2019] UGIC 218 · 2019 Preliminary Objection Dismissed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Preliminary objection to complaint on grounds of limitation and prescription
Decision
Preliminary objection dismissed; matter to proceed to hearing on the merits

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 the complainant's claim for trespass arising from the construction of power lines over his property in 1997 was not time-barred. Although the claim was filed 17 years after the initial trespass, the Tribunal found that the operational power line constituted a continuing tort of trespass, to which the Limitation Act does not apply in a strict sense. The Tribunal also rejected the preliminary objection based on prescription, finding that the respondents had not established the necessary elements for equitable prescription to apply.

Outcome

Preliminary objection dismissed; matter to proceed to hearing on the merits

Facts

In 1997, the Uganda Electricity Board constructed a 33KV power supply line over the complainant's property comprised in Block 3 Plot 193 at Ndorwa Karubanda, Kabale District, without the complainant's notification, consent, or compensation. The complainant and others are joint owners of the property and hold legal title to it. The power line has remained operational since construction. In 2014, the complainant lodged a complaint against the respondents for trespass and failure to compensate for utilization of the property. The first and third respondents raised a preliminary objection that the claim was time-barred under the Limitation Act Cap 80 s.3(1)(a), which bars actions in tort after six years, and by the equitable doctrine of prescription. The complainant argued that the claim was for compensation arising from utilization of land in the electricity sector, and that even if treated as trespass, it was a continuous trespass not caught by the Limitation Act.

Issues

  1. Whether the complainant's claim is barred by the Limitation Act Cap 80.
  2. Whether the complainant's claim is barred by the equitable doctrine of prescription.
  3. Whether the doctrine of continuous trespass applies to exclude the operation of the Limitation Act.

Orders

  • Preliminary objection dismissed.
  • Hearing of the complaint to proceed.

Rules and key headnotes

Trespass to Land — Continuous Trespass — Limitation Act Inapplicable
The tort of trespass to land is a continuing tort where the trespass remains ongoing. The continuation of a trespass constitutes a fresh trespass actionable per se, and the Limitation Act does not apply to continuous torts in a strict sense.
Trespass to Land — Elements — Unauthorized Entry and Interference
The tort of trespass to land consists of entering upon land in the possession of another without permission, remaining upon such land, or placing or projecting any object on, over, or upon it without permission or a right to do so. The act must be a physical interference with the complainant's land, and the complainant must have a present right to exclusive possession.
Limitation Act — Section 3(1)(a) — Actions in Tort — Six-Year Limitation Period
Section 3(1)(a) of the Limitation Act Cap 80 provides that actions founded on contract or tort shall not be brought after the expiration of six years from the date on which the cause of action arose. However, this limitation does not apply to continuing torts, where each day of continuation gives rise to a fresh cause of action.
Prescription — Elements Not Established — Quiet and Uninterrupted Possession Required
Prescription requires quiet and uninterrupted possession of land. Where a complainant has protested and demanded compensation or removal of materials, and the respondent has not claimed substantive rights or title to the land, the elements of prescription are not established.

Legislation cited (2)

Cases cited (11)

  • Nalongo Nekaka v Kesi Bagalaaliwo (HCCA 84 of 2012)
  • Omunga Bakhit v Agrasiela (HCCA 5 of 2010)
  • Jandu v Kirpal and Another [1975] EA 225
  • Dima Domnic Paro v Inyani and Another (HCCA 17 of 2016)
  • Justine EM.N. Lutaaya v Stirling Civil Engineering Company (Civil Appeal No. 11 of 2002)
  • Nalongo Nalwoga Nakazi v Salongo Kesi Bagalaaliwo (HCCA 84 of 2012)
  • F.X Miramago v Attorney General [1979] HCB 24
  • Christopher Katongole v Yusufu Ssewanyana (1990-1991) KALR 41
  • Oola Laloba v Okema Jakeo Akech (HCT 02-CV-0020 of 2004)
  • Amin Aroga v Haji Muhamad Annie (HCCA 10 of 2016)
  • Eriya Safu v Wilberforce Kuluse (1994) 111 KALR 10

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Kwesiga_v_Uganda_Electricity_Distribution_Co._Limited_and_2_Others_(MISCELLENOUS_APPLICANT_EDT_19_of_2014)_[2019]_UGIC_218_(6_September_2019)
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.