Wakilii

Okura & Anor v Umeme Ltd (CIVIL SUIT NO. 41 OF 2016)

High Court · [2019] UGHCCD 111 · 2019 Judgment for Plaintiff AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
First instance civil suit for compensation for unlawful death and personal injury
Decision
Judgment entered for the plaintiffs with damages totalling UGX 35,215,000 plus interest at 8% per annum from judgment date and costs.

Observed later treatment

Cited — treatment unverified cited in 1 (treatment unverified) Sequitur — Uganda’s citator · Derived from citing cases in the Wakilii corpus — not an assertion that this case is good law.

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.

No adverse treatment recorded Cited 1 time with no adverse treatment recorded; not yet tested on the merits. Citations rising — 3 citing cases on record, 3 in the most recent three data years. Derived from citing cases in the Wakilii corpus — a deterministic signal, not legal advice.

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 Umeme Limited was negligent in installing a Yaka meter without removing adjacent illegal uninsulated electrical connections that posed a danger to occupants. The doctrine of res ipsa loquitur applied. The defendant breached its duty of care by failing to disconnect illegal connections visible during installation. The court found contributory negligence by the deceased's family at 30% due to illegal connections on the premises. The plaintiff was awarded general and special damages totalling UGX 35,215,000 with 8% annual interest.

Outcome

Judgment entered for the plaintiffs with damages totalling UGX 35,215,000 plus interest at 8% per annum from judgment date and costs.

Facts

On 30 May 2015, Umeme Limited installed a Yaka meter at the plaintiffs' premises. A week before the incident, Umeme agents installed Yaka cables with a solidal wire that rubbed on iron sheets. On the day of the incident, the deceased Aisha Kiiza, aged 44, was electrocuted and died while her daughter Namusisi Shamim sustained injuries from electric shock. Police investigation found that the solidal wire supplying power was wrongly passed over sharp iron sheets which cut the insulation, energizing the house and hanging wire. The deceased operated a salon and was a wife and mother caring for her family. Umeme's own report confirmed both legal and illegal underground connections at the premises, with the illegal connections visible and adjacent to the area where Umeme conducted installation work.

Issues

  1. Whether the electrocution of Aisha Kiiza was occasioned by the negligent acts of the Defendant's agents or the illegal power connections by the Plaintiffs.
  2. Whether the Defendant is liable for the incident.
  3. What remedies are available to the parties.

Orders

  • A sum of UGX 33,152,000 general damages awarded as loss of dependency and loss of expectation of life: UGX 15,000,000 for the widower Okura Kemisi; UGX 18,152,000 for the two children of the deceased (Namusisi and Shakira) to be shared equally.
  • UGX 1,500,000 special damages awarded for funeral expenses.
  • UGX 63,000 special damages awarded for police report.
  • UGX 500,000 special damages awarded for medical expenses incurred by Namusisi.
  • Interest on all awards at the rate of 8% per annum from the date of judgment until payment in full.
  • Costs of the suit awarded to the plaintiffs.

Rules and key headnotes

Negligence — Duty of Care — Electricity Distributors — Installation Works
An electricity distributor owes a duty of care to occupants to ensure that when conducting installation works, adjacent uninsulated wires including illegal connections that are visible and within reach are removed or made safe, as such connections pose a foreseeable danger to persons who may come into contact with them.
Negligence — Res Ipsa Loquitur — Application
The doctrine of res ipsa loquitur applies when the cause of the complained event lies solely within the defendant's or defendant's servants' knowledge, control and management. The plaintiff is required to prove only the occurrence of the event, after which the defendant must show that the event could reasonably have occurred without negligence on the defendant's part.
Negligence — Contributory Negligence — Illegal Electrical Connections
The presence of illegal electrical connections on a plaintiff's premises constitutes contributory negligence in an electrocution claim, but does not absolve the electricity distributor of liability where the distributor failed in its statutory duty to remove the illegal connections during installation works.
Hearsay Evidence — Admissibility
Oral evidence must in all cases be direct. Evidence based on hearsay is inadmissible unless it falls within recognized exceptions. Testimony based on what a witness was told by a person who did not testify in court is hearsay and carries no evidential value.
Special Damages — Standard of Proof — Funeral Expenses
Special damages must be specifically pleaded and proved, but strictly proving does not mean proof must always be documentary. Special damages including funeral expenses can be proved by direct evidence of a person who paid the expenses, particularly where such expenses may be hard to document given their nature.
Loss of Dependency — Assessment — Multiplier Principle
In assessing damages for loss of dependency following wrongful death, the court applies the multiplier principle based on the probable length of the deceased's earning period. The deceased's income is subject to deductions for sums the deceased would have spent on themselves. At the end of the day, arithmetic may have to be mitigated by common sense, for it is an assessment and not a calculation which is being made.
Loss of Dependency — Monetization of Household Care
In assessing loss of dependency, a deceased mother and wife's contribution of household care and family support can be monetized at the market rate for a house help who would perform those household chores, and included in the calculation of the family's annual loss.

Legislation cited (7)

Cases cited (6)

  • Donoghue v Stevenson [1932] AC 562
  • Komakech Geofrey v Umeme Ltd (Civil Suit No. 13 of 2006)
  • Gapco (U) Ltd v A.S. Transporters (U) Ltd (Court of Appeal Civil Appeal No. 18 of 2004)
  • Haji Asuman Mutekanga v Equator Growers (U) Ltd (Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 7 of 1995)
  • Otim v Nsereko and Another (High Court Civil Suit No. 275 of 2014)
  • Daniel v Jones [1961] 1 WLR 115

Cases citing this judgment (1)

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

↓ Download PDF

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

Okura & Anor Vs Umeme Ltd (CIVIL SUIT NO. 41 OF 2016) [2019] UGHCCD 111 (2 May 2019)
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.