Wakilii

Mutenye Moses v UMEME Limited (EDT COMPLAINT 13 of 2017)

Tribunal · [2018] UGEDT 6 · 2018 Complaint Dismissed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Preliminary objection to jurisdiction in a complaint alleging negligence causing death by electrocution
Decision
Complaint dismissed for failure to properly plead statutory basis for wrongful death claim

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 it had jurisdiction to hear matters relating to the electricity sector, including claims arising from alleged negligence in electricity distribution causing death. However, the complaint was dismissed because it failed to specify that it was brought under the Law Reform (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act, which creates the statutory cause of action for wrongful death claims. No order as to costs was made.

Outcome

Complaint dismissed for failure to properly plead statutory basis for wrongful death claim

Facts

Mutenye Moses, as brother of the deceased Wanzala Sam, filed a complaint against UMEME Limited alleging that his brother died from electrocution caused by the respondent's negligence in electricity distribution. The complaint sought special and general damages for loss of pecuniary support on behalf of the deceased's family. After the complainant had given evidence, respondent's counsel raised a preliminary objection that the matter was improperly before the Tribunal because death was the cause of action and should have been brought under the Law Reform (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act in the High Court. The Tribunal was asked to determine whether it had jurisdiction and whether the complaint was properly filed.

Issues

  1. Whether the Electricity Disputes Tribunal had jurisdiction to hear a complaint where death is the cause of action.
  2. Whether the complaint was properly filed under the law, specifically whether it should have been brought under the Law Reform (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act Cap 79.

Orders

  • Complaint dismissed.
  • No order as to costs.

Rules and key headnotes

Administrative Law — Specialised Tribunals — Jurisdiction — Electricity Disputes Tribunal — Matters Relating to Electricity Sector
The Electricity Disputes Tribunal has jurisdiction to hear and determine all matters referred to it relating to the electricity sector, save for the exceptions stated in the Electricity Act, namely criminal offences and disputes parties have agreed to settle by agreement. Where a complaint alleges negligence in the distribution of electricity causing death, the matter relates to the electricity sector and falls within the Tribunal's jurisdiction.
Administrative Law — Specialised Tribunals — Original Jurisdiction — Primacy Over High Court
Where a statute establishes a specialised tribunal with jurisdiction over a defined subject matter and provides for appeal to the High Court, the tribunal has original jurisdiction and disputes within that subject matter must first be lodged with the tribunal, not the High Court. The High Court's role is appellate only.
Tort Law — Wrongful Death — Statutory Cause of Action — Law Reform (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act
At common law, death of a human being could not be complained of as an injury and gave rise to no cause of action. The Law Reform (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act created a new statutory cause of action enabling members of the family of the deceased to claim compensation for loss suffered as a result of death. Without application of this statute, no cause of action in respect of death can be sustained, irrespective of the foundation of the claim.
Civil Procedure — Pleadings — Statutory Cause of Action — Requirement to Plead Statutory Basis
Where a right to bring a cause of action is created by statute, it is necessary that the plaint or complaint clearly state that it is brought under the provisions of that statute. A complaint alleging wrongful death that omits to state it is brought under the Law Reform (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act is not properly filed and discloses no cause of action.
Civil Procedure — Preliminary Objections — Timing — Costs
Preliminary objections ought to be raised at the earliest opportunity. Where counsel intimates an intention to raise a preliminary objection, is given opportunity to do so but does not, and another counsel later raises the objection only after proceedings are well underway and evidence has been taken, the tribunal may decline to award costs even where the objection succeeds.

Legislation cited (17)

Cases cited (7)

  • URA v Rabbo Enterprises (U) Ltd & Anor (Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 12 of 2004)
  • Rabo Enterprises (U) Ltd v Commissioner General, URA (Court of Appeal No. 51 of 2003)
  • Uganda Electricity Board v G.W. Musoke (Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 30 of 1993)
  • Twine Amos v Tamusuza James (High Court Civil Revision No. 11 of 2009)
  • Baker V. Bolton 1808 1 Camp. 143
  • Odong Cypriano v Attorney General (High Court Civil Suit No. 15 of 2006)
  • Ali Mustafa Vs Songo Bus Company (1975) H.C.B 93

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Mutenye Moses v UMEME Limited (EDT COMPLAINT 13 of 2017) [2018] UGEDT 6 (12 November 2018)
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.