Wakilii

UETCL V Fredrick Sempebwa and Anor (Civil Appeal No. 106 of 2018)

High Court · [2021] UGHCCD 33 · 2021 Appeal Dismissed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Appeal from Electricity Disputes Tribunal decision on compensation and interest for way-leave
Decision
Appeal dismissed; Electricity Disputes Tribunal decision upholded including 20% per annum interest award

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 appeal, holding that a tribunal judgment signed by two of three members is valid where the third member died before delivery; that interest awarded at 20% per annum did not amount to double computation alongside inflation adjustment because the adjusted principal represented only the real value of the 2011 offer without interest; and that the appellant was estopped from denying a partial consent it had acted upon by paying the adjusted principal.

Outcome

Appeal dismissed; Electricity Disputes Tribunal decision upholded including 20% per annum interest award

Facts

The respondents claimed compensation from the appellant (UETCL) for land and developments taken for a way-leave. During the Electricity Disputes Tribunal hearing, the parties reached partial agreement to adjust the compensation sum from UGX 211,000,000 (offered in April 2011) to UGX 311,532,203 to reflect inflation adjustment, but left the issue of interest to the tribunal. The tribunal awarded interest at 20% per annum on the original sum from April 2011 to judgment date, and 20% on the adjusted sum from judgment to full payment. The appellant paid the adjusted principal sum but appealed, challenging the validity of the tribunal's judgment (signed by only two members after the third died) and the reasonableness of the interest award, arguing it amounted to double computation.

Issues

  1. Whether failure of all members of the Electricity Disputes Tribunal to sign the judgment rendered the judgment defective.
  2. Whether the interest of 20% awarded by the tribunal amounted to double computation or was unreasonable and unconscionable.
  3. Whether the tribunal rightly determined the issue of interest without the parties filing a consent settlement.
  4. What remedies are available to the parties.

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed.
  • The judgment and orders of the tribunal are hereby upheld.
  • Costs of the appeal are awarded to the respondents.

Rules and key headnotes

Administrative Law — Electricity Disputes Tribunal — Quorum and Validity of Decision — Death of Panel Member Before Judgment Delivery
Where a tribunal was properly constituted with three members during all hearings, the death of one member before judgment delivery does not invalidate a decision signed by the remaining two members, provided the decision represents the majority verdict as required by the applicable rules.
Civil Procedure — Judgments and Orders — Validity of Tribunal Decisions — Majority Verdict
Under Electricity Disputes Tribunal (Procedure) Rules 2012 r.26(1), a tribunal decision may be determined by majority verdict; a judgment signed by two of three members constitutes a valid majority decision where the tribunal was properly constituted during hearings.
Damages & Quantum — Interest on Compensation — Inflation Adjustment Distinguished from Interest
Inflation adjustment of a compensation sum to reflect its current real value does not constitute interest and does not preclude a separate award of interest; the two serve different purposes and their concurrent award does not amount to double computation.
Damages & Quantum — Interest — Rate of Interest — Reasonableness
An award of interest at 20% per annum on unpaid compensation is reasonable where the money remained unpaid from the date it was due, as interest compensates the plaintiff for deprivation of use of money and must account for inflation and currency depreciation.
Civil Procedure — Consent Judgments — Estoppel — Acting on Terms of Partial Settlement
Under Evidence Act s.114, a party who acts on the terms of a partial settlement by paying the agreed sum is estopped from subsequently denying the validity of that settlement or challenging a tribunal's determination of matters left unresolved by the parties.

Legislation cited (5)

Cases cited (9)

  • Kifamunte Henry v Uganda (Supreme Court Criminal Appeal No. 10 of 1997)
  • Komaketch v Rose Akol (Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 21 of 2010)
  • Orient Bank v Frederick Zaabwe and Others (Supreme Court Civil Application No. 17 of 2007)
  • Mark Extraction Enterprises Ltd v M/S Nalongo Orphanage (High Court Civil Suit No. 4 of 1996)
  • Stanbic Bank Uganda Ltd v Hajji Yahaya Sekalega (High Court Civil Suit No. 185 of 2009)
  • Esero Kasule v Attorney General (High Court Miscellaneous Application No. 688 of 2014)
  • J.K Patel v Spear Motors Ltd (Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 4 of 1991)
  • Peter Mulira v Mitchell Cotts (Court of Appeal Civil Appeal No. 15 of 2002)
  • Stanbic Bank Uganda Ltd v Uganda Crocs Ltd (Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 4 of 2004)

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

UETCL V Fredrick Sempebwa and Anor (Civil Appeal No. 106 of 2018) [2021] UGHCCD 33 (26 May 2021)
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.