Wakilii

Musisi Maseruka v UMEME Limited (EDT COMPLAINT 6 of 2014)

Tribunal · [2015] UGEDT 5 · 2015 Preliminary Objection Upheld AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Preliminary objection to complainant's locus standi in electricity dispute complaint
Decision
Complaint struck off with leave to amend pleadings

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 a holder of a power of attorney must take proceedings in the name of the donor, not in his own name. The complainant Musisi David Maseruka, acting as attorney, lacked locus standi to prosecute the complaint in his own name. The power of attorney was also found defective due to signature discrepancies and procedural irregularities. The complaint was struck off but the Tribunal allowed the parties to amend pleadings to correct procedural errors.

Outcome

Complaint struck off with leave to amend pleadings

Facts

Musisi David Maseruka filed a complaint against UMEME Ltd before the Electricity Disputes Tribunal. He purported to act under a power of attorney dated 14th July 2014 granted by Mohammed Sebaggala, the proprietor of land at Kyandondo Block 208 Plot 3833 and owner of the UMEME customer accounts in dispute. UMEME raised a preliminary objection that Maseruka lacked locus standi to bring proceedings in his own name. UMEME also challenged the validity of the power of attorney, arguing that the donor's signature differed materially from his passport signature and that the donor had left Uganda on 6th July 2014, eight days before the power of attorney was purportedly signed on 14th July 2014. UMEME further argued that the power of attorney violated the Oaths Act as it did not state where and when the Commissioner for Oaths witnessed the signing. The Tribunal noted that Mohammed Sebaggala had appeared in person on 4th July 2014 and orally stated that Maseruka was his agent, and that the Tribunal had advised him to properly constitute Maseruka as his attorney.

Issues

  1. Whether Musisi David Maseruka, as holder of a power of attorney, had locus standi to bring and prosecute the complaint in his own name.
  2. Whether the power of attorney dated 14th July 2014 was valid and properly executed.

Orders

  • Preliminary objection sustained.
  • Complaint in the name of Musisi David Maseruka struck off.
  • Complainant's counsel to take steps to make necessary amendments to the pleadings so that the matter may be adjudicated upon on its merits.

Rules and key headnotes

Civil Procedure — Locus Standi — Power of Attorney — Proceedings in Name of Donor
A holder of a power of attorney must take out proceedings in the name of the donor of the power of attorney, not in his own name. An attorney, being merely an agent, has no right of action in his own name.
Administrative Law — Powers of Attorney — Validity — Signature Discrepancies and Procedural Defects
A power of attorney is defective and cannot be relied upon where the purported donor's signature materially differs from his signature on other documents, where the donor was out of the country on the date the power of attorney was purportedly signed, and where the power of attorney violates the Oaths Act by failing to state the place and date the Commissioner for Oaths witnessed the signing.
Civil Procedure — Preliminary Objections — Procedural Defects — Leave to Amend
Where a complaint is struck off due to procedural defects arising from bonafide mistakes borne out of ignorance on the part of unrepresented parties, a tribunal may exercise its discretion to allow the parties to amend their pleadings so that the matter may be adjudicated on its merits, in order to avoid multiplicity of suits and to give every person with a complaint an opportunity to put forward their case.

Legislation cited (1)

Cases cited (3)

  • Ayigihugu & Co. Advocates v Muteteri Munyankindi (1988-1990) HCB 161
  • Uganda v Kisembo Moses (Criminal Session Case No. 22 of 2014)
  • Mohammed Majyambere v Bhakresa Khalil (High Court Miscellaneous Application No. 727 of 2011)

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Musisi Maseruka v UMEME Limited (EDT COMPLAINT 6 of 2014) [2015] UGEDT 5 (14 September 2015)
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.