Wakilii

Nanteza Juliet v Uganda Electricity Transmission Co. Ltd (Civil Suit No. 198 of 2025)

High Court · [2025] UGHC 1131 · 2025 Suit Dismissed — Want of Jurisdiction AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Preliminary objection on jurisdiction raised by defendant in civil suit for compensation and trespass
Decision
Suit dismissed for want of jurisdiction; plaintiff required to exhaust statutory remedies under the Electricity Act

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 High Court held that it lacked original jurisdiction to entertain a claim for compensation arising from the erection of electricity transmission lines. Where a plaintiff's claim, though framed as trespass, is in substance one for compensation under the Electricity Act, the plaintiff must first exhaust the statutory remedies by lodging a claim with the Electricity Regulatory Authority and, if aggrieved, appealing to the Electricity Disputes Tribunal. The High Court's jurisdiction is appellate only. The suit was dismissed as premature.

Outcome

Suit dismissed for want of jurisdiction; plaintiff required to exhaust statutory remedies under the Electricity Act

Facts

The plaintiff, registered proprietor of land in Wakiso District, claimed that in 2019 officials of the defendant electricity transmission company approached her to conduct a valuation for passing high-voltage electricity lines through her land. After the valuation, she was instructed to halt all plans concerning the land. The defendant erected high-voltage transmission lines through her land without paying compensation. The plaintiff sued for a declaration of trespass, compensation for the commercial value of her land, general damages, exemplary damages, and costs. The defendant raised a preliminary objection that the High Court lacked original jurisdiction, contending that the plaintiff's claim was in substance one for compensation under the Electricity Act and that the plaintiff had failed to exhaust the statutory remedies by first lodging a claim with the Electricity Regulatory Authority and, if necessary, appealing to the Electricity Disputes Tribunal. The defendant also averred that it had compensated a previous owner, Ibrahim Kasibante, in 2015.

Issues

  1. Whether the High Court has original jurisdiction to hear and determine a suit for compensation arising from the erection of electricity transmission lines over land.

Orders

  • Suit dismissed.
  • Each party to bear their own costs.

Rules and key headnotes

Administrative Law — Exhaustion of Statutory Remedies — Exclusive Jurisdiction of Specialised Tribunals
Where a statute provides a specific remedy and forum for adjudicating a matter or dispute, only that remedy and forum must be followed, otherwise the legislative intention fails. A party cannot invoke the unlimited jurisdiction of the High Court to evade the exclusive jurisdiction of an administrative tribunal.
Statutory Interpretation — Electricity Act — Jurisdiction of Electricity Disputes Tribunal
Under the Electricity Act, the Electricity Disputes Tribunal has unlimited jurisdiction over all matters arising from the electricity sector. Section 70 requires that any claim for compensation for land use arising from the exercise of a licensee's powers be lodged with the Electricity Regulatory Authority within one year, with a right of appeal to the Tribunal. The High Court's jurisdiction is appellate only, under section 110(3), from decisions of the Tribunal.
Civil Procedure — Preliminary Objections — Substance Over Form in Pleadings
Where a plaintiff frames a claim as one for trespass but the substance of the pleadings, the reliefs sought, and the notice of intention to sue reveal that the true grievance is failure to pay compensation for land use authorised by statute, the court will characterise the claim according to its substance. A claim in substance for compensation under the Electricity Act must be pursued through the statutory remedies provided by that Act.
Land & Property — Compensation for Wayleave — Distinction Between Trespass and Statutory Compensation Claims
Where a licensee under the Electricity Act approaches a landowner, conducts a valuation, and erects transmission lines with the landowner's implied consent or knowledge, but fails to pay compensation, the landowner's remedy lies in a claim for compensation under section 70 of the Electricity Act, not in a suit for trespass. Trespass arises only where consent was never sought or obtained.

Legislation cited (14)

Cases cited (8)

  • Mukisa Biscuits Manufacturing Co. Ltd v West End Distributors Limited [1969] EA 696
  • National Assembly v Karume [2008] 1 KLR 426
  • Juma Bitalo v Attorney General and M & T Construction Limited (Civil Suit No. 150 of 2021)
  • Ssemabajjwe Abdul Kiwooma v Uganda Electricity Transmission Company Limited (Civil Suit No. 242 of 2022)
  • Lweza Clays & Another v Tropical Bank & Another (Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 31 of 2018)
  • Dr Charles Barugahare v Makerere University and Three Others (High Court Miscellaneous Cause No. 147 of 2020)
  • Uganda Revenue Authority v Rabbo Enterprises (U) Limited and Another (Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 12 of 2004)
  • Juma Bitalo v Attorney General and M & T Construction Limited (Civil Suit No. 150 of 2021)

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Nanteza Juliet v Uganda Electricity Transmission Co. Ltd (Civil Suit No. 198 of 2025) [2025] UGHC 1131 (24 October 2025)
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.