Wakilii

Mawerere v Umeme Uganda and Another (Civil Suit 15 of 2020)

High Court · [2024] UGHC 585 · 2024 Judgment for Plaintiff AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
First instance civil suit for trespass to land and damages arising from unauthorised installation of high-voltage electric power lines
Decision
Judgment entered for the Plaintiff against both Defendants jointly and severally. Permanent injunction granted, power lines to be removed at Defendants' cost, and general damages of UGX 200,000,000 plus interest awarded.

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 High Court held both defendants jointly liable for trespass to land. The first defendant (electricity distributor) physically entered the plaintiff's registered freehold land by erecting high-voltage power lines without consent, wayleaves, or prior notice, in breach of the Electricity Act. The second defendant (telecommunications company) procured or induced the first defendant's trespass to supply its own facility. The court awarded a permanent injunction, ordered removal of the power lines at defendants' cost, and awarded general damages of UGX 200 million plus interest.

Outcome

Judgment entered for the Plaintiff against both Defendants jointly and severally. Permanent injunction granted, power lines to be removed at Defendants' cost, and general damages of UGX 200,000,000 plus interest awarded.

Facts

The plaintiff acquired a freehold interest in plot 31 at Kijungu, Masindi, registered in December 2015. In 2010, the second defendant (a telecommunications company) caused the first defendant (an electricity distributor) to install three high-voltage electric power lines through the middle of the plaintiff's land to supply the second defendant's regional switchboard on neighbouring land. The plaintiff was never informed, no consent was sought, and no wayleaves were obtained. The plaintiff discovered the power lines and wrote several complaint letters that were ignored. He could not develop the land because all building plans were rejected by Masindi Municipal Council due to the presence of the power lines. The court visited the locus and observed the power lines passing through the middle of the suit land and the second defendant's facility on neighbouring land.

Issues

  1. Whether the Defendants are liable for trespassing on the Plaintiff's land comprised in FRV HQT 645 Folio 14 Plot 31 at Kijungu Masindi measuring 0.2110 Hectares.
  2. What remedies are available to the parties?

Orders

  • A permanent injunction against the Defendants from further trespass on land described as Block Road, Kigulya Hill Road Plot 31 land at Kijungu.
  • An order to remove the electric power lines from land described as Block Road, Kigulya Hill Road Plot 31, at Kijungu, at the Defendants' cost.
  • General damages at the tune of UGX 200,000,000 (Two hundred million Uganda Shillings).
  • Interest at the rate of 18% per annum on the sum of UGX 200,000,000 from the date of judgment until payment in full.
  • Costs of the suit awarded to the Plaintiff.

Rules and key headnotes

Trespass to Land — Elements — Plaintiff's Title and Possession
A plaintiff with an uncontested registered freehold title to land has locus standi to maintain an action for trespass even if not in actual physical possession. The plaintiff may prove either actual physical possession or constructive possession through holding legal title, particularly where the land is unoccupied and there is no adverse possession.
Trespass to Land — Procured or Induced Trespass — Secondary Tortfeasor Liability
Under common law principles of procuring or inducing another to commit a tort, a party who actively encourages, facilitates, or benefits from another's trespass may be held jointly liable even if they did not physically enter the land. The principle applies where one party instigates or induces another to commit a tortious act and becomes a party to the wrongful conduct.
Electricity Act — Wayleaves and Landowner Consent — Section 67
Under the Electricity Act section 67(3) and (4), an electricity licensee must obtain wayleaves, give 60 days' notice to the landowner before entering private land (except for maintenance or repair), and ensure prompt payment of fair and adequate compensation for damage or loss. Entry onto private land to erect power lines without compliance with these statutory requirements is unlawful.
Electricity Act — Consumer's Electric Supply Line — Section 58(3) and Grid Code Regulation 7.3.1
Where a consumer applies to construct an electric supply line to their premises under section 58(3) of the Electricity Act, the electricity licensee must ensure that conditions pertaining to wayleaves are satisfied before making supply available, as required by regulation 7.3.1 of the Electricity (Primary Grid Code) Regulations. A licensee who makes supply available before wayleaves are obtained acts unlawfully.
Pleadings — Raising New Claims in Submissions — Order 6 Rule 7
A party may not raise a new ground of claim or head of relief in submissions that was not pleaded in the plaint. Under Order 6 rule 7 of the Civil Procedure Rules, parties are bound by their pleadings, and claims not pleaded (such as punitive damages raised only in submissions) will not be granted.
General Damages for Trespass — Assessment Principles
In assessing general damages for trespass to land, courts are guided by the value of the subject matter, the economic inconvenience the innocent party has been put through, and the nature and extent of the breach suffered. Damages may be awarded to compensate for loss of use and inability to develop the land.

Legislation cited (7)

Cases cited (10)

  • Justine E. M. N Lutaaya v Stirling Civil Engineering (Civil Appeal No. 11 of 2002)
  • Sheikh Muhammed Lubowa v Kitara Enterprises Ltd (Court of Appeal No. 4 of 1987)
  • Omito Luka & 5 Others v Attorney General (Civil Suit No. 73 of 2004)
  • Adrabo Stanley v Madira Jimmy (Civil Suit No. 24 of 2013)
  • R v Cunningham [1957] 3 WLR
  • Hamlyn v Houston & Co [1903] 1 KB 81
  • Mugerwa Sulait v Umeme Ltd (Civil Suit No. 86 of 2012)
  • Tayebwa Geoffrey & Besingomwe Edison v Kagimu Ngudde Mustafa (Civil Suit No. 118 of 2012)
  • Charles Acire v Myaana Engola (Civil Suit No. 143 of 1993)
  • Semalulu v Nakitto (Civil Appeal No. 4 of 2008)

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Mawerere v Umeme Uganda and Another (Civil Suit 15 of 2020) [2024] UGHC 585 (30 April 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.