Wakilii

Ssekamwa v UMEME Ltd (Civil Suit No. 482 of 2013)

High Court · [2014] UGCOMMC 105 · 2014 Preliminary Objection Dismissed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Ruling on defendant's preliminary objection that plaint does not disclose a cause of action
Decision
Preliminary objection dismissed; substantive suit to proceed

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 dismissed the defendant's preliminary objection that the plaint disclosed no cause of action. The court held that where a deed of acknowledgement of debt exists between the plaintiff and defendant concerning electricity supply, the plaintiff cannot be deemed a stranger to the contract. The mere existence of the written agreement attached to the plaint established prima facie that the plaintiff enjoyed a right under contract with the defendant, sufficient to survive a preliminary objection.

Outcome

Preliminary objection dismissed; substantive suit to proceed

Facts

The plaintiff, trading as Ex-Service Men, filed suit against UMEME Limited for alleged breaches of an electricity supply contract. The plaintiff claimed he had inherited an electricity bill from his predecessor at business premises where power had been disconnected. As a condition for reconnection, the plaintiff and defendant entered into a Deed of Acknowledgement of Debt dated 26 September 2007, under which the plaintiff undertook to pay the outstanding bill and make prompt future payments. The plaintiff alleged he paid the outstanding bill but the defendant repeatedly disconnected power. The defendant raised a preliminary objection that the plaint disclosed no cause of action, arguing the plaintiff was not party to the electricity supply contract, which was allegedly with Uganda Ex-Services Men Association Limited, and therefore the plaintiff lacked locus standi to sue. The defendant contended the plaintiff was a stranger to the contract and enjoyed no right.

Issues

  1. Whether the plaint discloses a cause of action.
  2. Whether the plaintiff had locus standi to sue the defendant for breach of contract relating to electricity supply.

Orders

  • Preliminary objection overruled.
  • Costs awarded to the plaintiff.

Rules and key headnotes

Preliminary Objections — Requirements — Pure Point of Law
A preliminary objection must constitute a pure point of law argued on the assumption that all facts pleaded by the other side are correct, and cannot succeed if any fact has to be ascertained or if what is sought is the exercise of judicial discretion.
Cause of Action — Test for Disclosure in Pleadings
For a plaint to disclose a cause of action, it must show that the plaintiff enjoyed a right, that right was violated, and the defendant is liable for that violation.
Privity of Contract — Strangers to Contract — Locus Standi
A stranger to a contract cannot sue upon the contract unless given a statutory right to do so, but where a written agreement exists between the plaintiff and defendant, the plaintiff cannot be deemed a stranger and enjoys standing to sue.
Preliminary Objections — Determination on Face of Pleadings and Attachments
To establish whether a plaintiff has a cause of action against a defendant on a preliminary objection, the court is required to peruse the pleadings and their attachments, and where such attachments establish prima facie that a contractual relationship existed, the objection must fail.

Legislation cited (2)

Cases cited (9)

  • Sullivan v Mohammed Osman [1959] EA 239
  • Auto Garage & Others v Motokov (No.3) (1971) EA 519
  • Lunco Contractors Ltd v Attorney General and Combine Services Ltd (HCCS No. 318 of 2004)
  • Triad Holdings Limited v Networks Exports PVT Ltd and 2 Others (HCCS No. 358 of 2000)
  • Uunet Kenya Limited v Telekom Kenya Limited and Another [2004] 1 EA 348
  • Mukisa Biscuit Manufacturing Limited v West End Distributors Limited [1969] EA 696
  • Ssagu v Road Master Cycles (U) Ltd [2002] 1 EA 258
  • Kayanja v New India Assurance Company Ltd [1968] EA 295
  • Jeraj Shariff & Co v Chotal Fancy Stores (1960) EA 375

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Ssekamwa v UMEME Ltd (Civil Suit No. 482 of 2013) [2014] UGCommC 105 (6 August 2014)
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.