Nampembe Daisy v Uganda Electricity Transmission Company Limited (Civil Suit No 0097 of 2023)
Observed later treatment
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 High Court held that the defendant utility company was a trespasser when it installed high-voltage electricity transmission lines on the plaintiff's land in 2007 without authorization or consent. The court rejected the defendant's plea of res judicata based on a previous withdrawn suit. Constitutional provisions requiring consent and prompt compensation before compulsory land acquisition apply to utility companies acquiring land for public purposes. The plaintiff, as registered administrator of the estate, proved ownership through letters of administration and certificate of title. General damages of UGX 50,000,000 awarded for deprivation of use and potential health interference, plus 6% interest from date of trespass and costs.
Outcome
Plaintiff's claim for trespass and compensation successful; defendant found to be trespasser; general damages, interest and costs awarded to plaintiff
Facts
In 2007, Uganda Electricity Transmission Company Limited entered the plaintiff's land (Block 169 Plot 125, Nama, Mukono District) without consent and installed high-voltage electricity transmission lines and equipment. The plaintiff initially sought compensation but was refused due to lack of letters of administration and certificate of title. After obtaining these documents in 2019, the plaintiff again requested compensation, which was denied. The plaintiff issued a formal demand notice which was also rejected. The defendant failed to file a defence or witness statement. At hearing on 26 August 2024, defendant's counsel indicated willingness to settle amicably but provided no terms. The plaintiff adduced evidence through one witness showing she was administrator of the estate of late Erukana Kiwanuka, held the certificate of title, and that transmission lines had been erected without her notice or consent. The defendant raised a preliminary objection based on res judicata, citing HCCS No. 38 of 2021, but that suit was withdrawn by consent and never finally determined.
Issues
- Whether the Plaintiff is the rightful owner of the land and whether the Defendant is a trespasser.
- Whether the Plaintiff is entitled to compensation from the Defendant.
- Whether there are any remedies available to the parties.
Orders
- General damages of UGX 50,000,000 awarded to the plaintiff.
- Costs of the suit awarded to the plaintiff.
- Interest on compensation at a rate of 6% from the date of trespass until payment in full.
Rules and key headnotes
Legislation cited (6)
Cases cited (10)
- Justine E M N Lutaaya v Stirling Civil Engineering (Civil Appeal No. 11 of 2002)
- Sheik Muhammed Lubowa v Kitara Enterprises Ltd (Court of Appeal No. 4 of 1987)
- Odyeki & Another v Yokonani & 4 Others (Civil Appeal No. 0009 of 2017)
- Ponsiano Semakula v. Susane Magala and others (1993) KALR 213
- Boutique Shazim Limited v. Norattam Bhatia and another
- Greenhalgh v. Mallard
- UEB v Launde Stephen Sanya
- Crown Beverages Limited v Sendu Edward (Civil Appeal No. 1 of 2005)
- Kampala District Land Board & George Mitala v Venansio Babweyana (Civil Appeal No. 2 of 2007)
- El Termewy v Awdi & Others (Civil Suit No. 95 of 2012)
Cases citing this judgment (2)
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
The original judgment as reported. Read the original PDF before relying on any passage.