Wakilii

Uganda Electricity Transmission Company Limited v Ssempebwa and Another (Civil Appeal No. 106 of 2018)

High Court · [2021] UGHCCD 275 · 2021 Appeal Dismissed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Appeal from the Electricity Disputes Tribunal arising from EDT Complaint No. 20 of 2017
Decision
Appeal dismissed with costs. Tribunal award of compensation plus interest upheld.

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

Held that a tribunal judgment signed by two of three members is valid where one member died before delivery, constituting a majority decision under Rule 26(1) EDT Procedure Rules 2012. Interest at 20% per annum was properly awarded in addition to inflationary adjustment of principal compensation, as the adjustment reflected real value without compensating for deprivation of use of money. The appellant was estopped from challenging the consent arrangement having acted upon it by paying the adjusted principal sum. Appeal dismissed.

Outcome

Appeal dismissed with costs. Tribunal award of compensation plus interest upheld.

Facts

The respondents claimed compensation for land taken by the appellant for a way leave. During tribunal proceedings, the parties reached partial agreement to adjust the compensation from UGX 211,000,000 to UGX 311,532,203 to account for inflation between 2011 and 2018. The parties left the issue of interest for the tribunal to determine. 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 tribunal judgment on three grounds: that it was defective because only two of three members signed it (the third having died before delivery); that the interest award amounted to double computation given the inflationary adjustment; and that the tribunal erred in determining interest without a formal consent settlement.

Issues

  1. Whether failure of all members of the Electricity Disputes Tribunal to sign the judgment rendered it 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.

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed.
  • The judgment and orders of the Electricity Disputes Tribunal are upheld.
  • Costs of the appeal awarded to the respondents.

Rules and key headnotes

Administrative Law — Tribunal Procedure — Validity of Judgment — Death of Panel Member
A tribunal judgment signed by a majority of members is valid even where one member dies before delivery, provided the tribunal was properly constituted throughout the hearing and the decision represents a majority verdict.
Civil Procedure — Estoppel — Acting on Judgment
A party who acts upon a tribunal judgment by making payment in accordance with its terms is estopped from subsequently challenging the validity of that judgment.
Damages & Quantum — Interest — Distinction from Inflationary Adjustment
An inflationary adjustment to restore the real value of a principal sum awarded in a prior year does not amount to interest and does not preclude a separate award of interest to compensate for deprivation of use of money from the date the sum became due to the date of judgment.
Damages & Quantum — Interest — Reasonableness of Rate
An award of interest at 20% per annum on compensation due from 2011 to 2018 is reasonable and does not amount to unconscionable enrichment where it compensates for deprivation of use of money over that period.
Civil Procedure — Consent Settlements — Partial Consent
Where parties reach partial agreement on quantum but leave a discrete issue such as interest for tribunal determination, the tribunal acts properly in adjudicating the reserved issue without requiring a formal signed consent settlement.

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.

Uganda Electricity Transmission Company Limited v Ssempebwa and Another (Civil Appeal No. 106 of 2018) [2021] UGHCCD 275 (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.