Wakilii

Namatovu v UMEME Limited (EDT COMPLAINT 8 of 2015)

Tribunal · [2018] UGEDT 2 · 2018 Complaint Allowed — Damages Awarded AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Complaint before the Electricity Disputes Tribunal for trespass and compensation
Decision
Complaint allowed with compensation and costs awarded to the Complainant

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 UMEME Ltd committed trespass by erecting an electricity power line on the Complainant's land without permission. The Respondent's swift relocation of the line within three days of receiving the complaint constituted an admission of trespass. The Complainant was entitled to compensation for property destruction and general damages for trespass. The Tribunal awarded UGX 1,192,000 for property destruction and UGX 2,500,000 as general damages for the three-day trespass period, plus costs and interest at 24% per annum from judgment.

Outcome

Complaint allowed with compensation and costs awarded to the Complainant

Facts

In 2011, while the Complainant was away from home, UMEME Ltd erected an electricity power line consisting of poles and wires through her land at plot 79, Block 191, Mengo County, Magere Village, without her permission. The land was her occupancy (kibanja) where she lived and grew various fruits for commercial and domestic use. She immediately complained to LC officials and made several visits to the Respondent's offices. In January 2013, she formally lodged a written complaint. On 4 February 2013, the Respondent's official acknowledged the complaint and promised to relocate the power line. The line was relocated to the road reserve on 7 February 2013. The Complainant sought compensation for property destruction and trespass. The Respondent offered UGX 916,500 based on a valuation report, which the Complainant rejected as too low.

Issues

  1. Whether or not the Respondent, UMEME LTD, committed trespass to the land of the Complainant?
  2. If so, whether or not the Complainant is entitled to compensation from the Respondent?
  3. Whether there are any remedies available to the Complainant?

Orders

  • The Respondent committed trespass to the Complainant's land.
  • The Complainant is entitled to compensation.
  • Property destruction damages awarded: UGX 1,192,000.
  • General damages for trespass awarded: UGX 2,500,000.
  • The Respondent shall pay costs of the suit.
  • Interest on the awarded sums at the rate of 24% per annum from the date of judgment to full payment.

Rules and key headnotes

Trespass to Land — Erection of Structures Without Permission — Admission by Conduct
Where a party erects structures on another's land without permission and subsequently relocates those structures upon complaint, such conduct constitutes an admission of trespass.
Trespass — Assessment of Compensation — Property Destruction and General Damages
Compensation for trespass includes both special damages for property destruction and general damages for the unlawful interference with land rights, assessed according to the duration and nature of the trespass.
Property Destruction — Valuation — Adjustment for Unaccounted Items
Where a valuation report does not capture all damaged property, the tribunal may adjust the assessed value upward by a reasonable percentage to account for unaccounted items.

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Namatovu v UMEME Limited (EDT COMPLAINT 8 of 2015) [2018] UGEDT 2 (1 August 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.