Wakilii

Mugerwa v Umeme Ltd (CIVIL SUIT NO 86 OF 2012)

High Court · [2019] UGHCCD 277 · 2019 Judgment for Plaintiff AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
First instance civil suit for trespass and negligence arising from laying of electricity wires over plaintiff's residential property
Decision
Judgment entered for the plaintiff with damages and costs awarded

Observed later treatment

Treatment recorded in citing cases followed in 1 Sequitur — Uganda’s citator · Derived from citing cases in the Wakilii corpus — not an assertion that this case is good law.

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.

Good law Followed in 1 case and applied in 0 cases, with no adverse treatment recorded. Derived from citing cases in the Wakilii corpus — a deterministic signal, not legal advice.

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 that laying electricity wires over a landowner's property without the statutory 60-day notice required under the Electricity Act s.67(4) constitutes trespass, even where the licensee has general authority. The defendant utility company was found vicariously liable for its employees' negligent act in placing wires overhead, creating foreseeable danger of electrocution. Trespass is actionable per se without proof of damage. Special damages for lost rental income were refused due to lack of specificity and documentary proof.

Outcome

Judgment entered for the plaintiff with damages and costs awarded

Facts

In October 2009, Umeme Limited's employees laid electric wires over the plaintiff's residential house in Buloba Village, Buikwe District, to supply electricity to a neighbour. The plaintiff was neither notified nor present during the installation. The wires remained in place until January 2011 despite the plaintiff's written complaints to Umeme's area manager. After the plaintiff wrote to Umeme's managing director on 18 January 2011, employees removed the wires the same evening without notice. One Godfrey Ndyamutunga, identified as Umeme's surveyor, was involved in laying the wires. The plaintiff claimed he and his family were exposed to danger of electrocution and that he incurred loss of rental income during the period the wires remained. Umeme denied all allegations but failed to produce any witness at trial. The court proceeded to close the defence under Order 17 Rule 4 CPR after defendant's counsel indicated inability to produce a witness.

Issues

  1. Whether the laying of electric wires over the plaintiff's premises constituted trespass?
  2. Whether the defendant's agents, employees and/or servants acted negligently while laying electric wires over the suit premises?
  3. Whether the defendant is vicariously liable for the acts of its servants/agents?
  4. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the remedies sought?

Orders

  • Declaration that the laying of electric wires over the plaintiff's land amounted to trespass.
  • Declaration that the defendant's agents, employees and/or servants acted negligently while laying the electric wires over the plaintiff's land and the defendant is vicariously liable for their acts.
  • UGX 20,000,000 awarded as general damages.
  • Interest on the general damages at a rate of 15% per annum from the date of filing the suit until payment in full.
  • Costs of the suit awarded to the plaintiff.

Rules and key headnotes

Trespass to Land — Elements — Unauthorised Entry
Trespass to land occurs when a person makes an unauthorised entry upon land and thereby interferes, or portends to interfere, with another person's lawful possession of that land. The tort is committed not against the land, but against the person in actual or constructive possession. Only a person in possession has capacity to sue in trespass, and any amount of possession will suffice.
Electricity Act — Entry on Private Land — Statutory Notice Requirement
Under the Electricity Act s.67(4), a licensee must give 60 days' notice to the landowner before entering private land to place or maintain electric supply lines, except for maintenance or repair. Entry without such notice is unlawful and constitutes trespass, even where the licensee has general authority under s.67(1) to place lines.
Electricity Act — Upgrading Power Supply — Notice Requirement
Where a licensee enters land not for repair and maintenance but to improve or upgrade power supply by laying new lines, and the landowner has not been given the statutory 60 days' notice, the entry is unlawful and amounts to trespass. Consent of the landowner is required for such works under the Electricity Act.
Trespass to Land — Continuing Trespass — Right of Action
An action in trespass can be maintained at any time even after the trespass has ceased. The court will take into consideration the period during which the trespass occurred, particularly where it was only within the power of the defendant to cease the trespass.
Negligence — Duty of Care — Foreseeability and Proximity
An electricity licensee owes a duty of care to an adjoining landowner when distributing electricity. The duty is breached where it is reasonably foreseeable that overlaying electric wires (which are potentially dangerous appliances) above a house would cause harm to the occupants. The proximity of harm is both close and foreseeable, and reasonable care must be taken while laying wires.
Vicarious Liability — Course of Employment
A master is liable for the acts of his servant committed within the course of their employment. The master remains liable whether the acts of the servant are negligent or deliberate, wanton or criminal, and even if done contrary to the master's orders. An employer is liable for the tortious acts of his servant if the servant acted dangerously, recklessly or for his own benefit, as long as he was on his master's duty when he inflicted the tort.
Trespass to Land — Damages — Actionable Per Se
The tort of trespass is actionable per se even if there is no damage done to the land. A plaintiff is entitled to damages for trespass without proof of any apparent injury or loss.

Legislation cited (4)

Cases cited (15)

  • Justine E.M.N Lutaaya v Stirling Civil Engineering Company (Civil Appeal No. 11 of 2002)
  • Umeme Ltd v Sonko & Anor (Miscellaneous Application No. 025 of 2013)
  • Blyth v Birmingham Water Works (1856) 11 Ex 781
  • Donoghue v Stevenson [1932] AC 562
  • Caparo Industries PLC v Dickman [1990] AC 605
  • Muwonge v Attorney General, 1967 EA
  • Ketayomba v Uganda Securiko Limited [1977]HCB at 170
  • Gapco (U) Ltd v AS Transporters (Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 7 of 2007)
  • Stanbic Bank Uganda Ltd v Sekalega (Civil Suit No. 18 of 2009)
  • Senyakazane -Vs- Attorney General [1984[ HCB
  • Moses Ssali a.k.a Bebe Cool & Others v A.G and Others (High Court Civil Suit No. 86 of 2010)
  • Uganda Commercial Bank Vs Deo Kigozi 2002 EA 293
  • Storms v Hutchinson [1905] AC 515
  • Charles Acire v Myaana Engola (High Court Civil Suit No. 143 of 1993)
  • Placid Weli v Hippo Tours & 2 Ors (High Court Civil Suit No. 939 of 1996)

Cases citing this judgment (1)

How later Ugandan judgments in the Wakilii corpus have cited this case. Treatment labels come from Sequitur — Uganda’s citator — each backed by a verbatim span from the citing judgment, and are not an assertion that this case is, or is not, good law.

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Mugerwa Vs Umeme Ltd (CIVIL SUIT NO 86 OF 2012) [2019] UGHCCD 277 (28 August 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.