Wakilii

Michael Mugambe Kibirango v UMEME Limited (MISCELLENOUS APPLICANT EDT 1 of 2020)

Tribunal · [2020] UGEDT 3 · 2020 Application Dismissed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Miscellaneous application for reconnection of electricity supply pending determination of main complaint
Decision
Application for reconnection dismissed with costs to the Respondent

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 dismissed the application for reconnection of electricity supply. The Applicant failed to prove that he had filed a complaint with the Electricity Regulatory Authority before or at the time of disconnection, as required to invoke the protection of Regulation 15.6.1(a) of the Electricity (Primary Grid Code) Regulation 2003. The burden of proof rested on the Applicant to establish the existence of a pending ERA complaint, which he failed to discharge. Orders for reconnection are discretionary and granted only in exceptional circumstances where the applicant proves the factual and legal grounds.

Outcome

Application for reconnection dismissed with costs to the Respondent

Facts

The Applicant operated a maize mill supplied with electricity by the Respondent. The Respondent disconnected the Applicant's electricity supply in March 2017 for failure to pay outstanding arrears, and disconnected several times thereafter. The Applicant filed a complaint before the Electricity Disputes Tribunal (Complaint No. 05 of 2020) and simultaneously filed this miscellaneous application seeking reconnection pending determination of the main complaint. The Applicant alleged he had lost revenue of UGX 360,000,000 due to disconnections and had overpaid UGX 57,000,000. The Applicant contended the disconnection was illegal because he had filed a complaint with the Electricity Regulatory Authority. The Respondent opposed the application, asserting the disconnection was lawful, followed proper procedures, and that the Applicant had not filed an ERA complaint before disconnection. The Respondent's evidence indicated the Applicant filed the ERA complaint on 24 March 2020, one month after the disconnection on 17 February 2020.

Issues

  1. Whether the Respondent should be ordered to reconnect electricity supply to the Applicant's premises pending determination of the main complaint.
  2. Whether the Applicant had a pending complaint before the Electricity Regulatory Authority at the time of disconnection such that the disconnection violated Regulation 15.6.1(a) of the Electricity (Primary Grid Code) Regulation 2003.

Orders

  • Application dismissed.
  • Costs awarded to the Respondent.

Rules and key headnotes

Evidence — Burden of Proof — He Who Alleges Must Prove
An applicant who predicates an application on the existence of certain facts bears the burden of proving those facts. Where an applicant alleges that a disconnection was unlawful because a complaint was pending before the Electricity Regulatory Authority at the time of disconnection, the applicant must adduce evidence proving the existence and timing of that complaint.
Statutory Interpretation — Electricity Regulation — Protection Against Disconnection
Under Regulation 15.6.1(a) of the Electricity (Primary Grid Code) Regulation 2003, a licensee shall not disconnect supply to a consumer where the consumer has made a complaint directly related to the reason for the proposed disconnection to the Electricity Regulatory Authority, the Tribunal, or another external dispute resolution body and the complaint remains unresolved. The protection applies only where the complaint was filed before or at the time of disconnection.
Administrative Law — Judicial Discretion — Reconnection Orders
The grant of orders for reconnection of electricity supply pending determination of a complaint is a matter of judicial discretion by the Tribunal and must be exercised in exceptional circumstances. Each case must be decided on its own merits. An applicant must prove that the facts of the case deserve such orders and not merely allege or assert them in the pleadings.

Legislation cited (4)

  • Electricity (Primary Grid Code) Regulation 2003 Regulation 15.6.1
  • Electricity (Primary Grid Code) Regulation 2003 Regulation 20(3)
  • Electricity (Primary Grid Code) Regulation 2003 Regulation 15.1
  • Electricity (Primary Grid Code) Regulation 2003 Regulation 15.1.1

Cases cited (2)

  • Katakuwange Fred v UMEME Limited (EDT No. 019 of 2017)
  • Johnrick Trading Company and Property Consultants Limited v UMEME Limited (EDT No. 017 of 2019)

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Michael Mugambe Kibirango v UMEME Limited (MISCELLENOUS APPLICANT EDT 1 of 2020) [2020] UGEDT 3 (22 July 2020)
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.