Wakilii

Uganda Electricity Transmission Company Ltd v Biretwa and Another (HCT-01-LD-CR-0004-2025)

High Court · [2025] UGHC 1144 · 2025 Revision Allowed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Revision application from Chief Magistrate's judgment in a civil suit for trespass and damages
Decision
Chief Magistrate's judgment set aside as a nullity; claim dismissed for want of jurisdiction without prejudice to referral to the Electricity Disputes Tribunal

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 the Chief Magistrate lacked jurisdiction to hear a trespass claim arising from electricity transmission infrastructure construction, as Section 118 of the Electricity Act vests exclusive jurisdiction over all matters relating to the electricity sector in the Electricity Disputes Tribunal. The judgment and orders of the Chief Magistrate were set aside as a nullity, and the claim was dismissed without prejudice to referral to the Electricity Disputes Tribunal. Costs awarded to the Respondents due to the Applicant's inordinate delay in raising the jurisdictional objection.

Outcome

Chief Magistrate's judgment set aside as a nullity; claim dismissed for want of jurisdiction without prejudice to referral to the Electricity Disputes Tribunal

Facts

The 1st Respondent, Biretwa Joshua, sued the Applicant, Uganda Electricity Transmission Company Ltd (UETCL), in the Chief Magistrate's Court for trespass and damages, claiming UETCL constructed a high-voltage power line on his land in Rweihamba Village without compensation. UETCL joined the 2nd Respondent, Daaki Christopher (the 1st Respondent's father), as a co-defendant, asserting he had been compensated for the same land in 2010. During trial, UETCL failed to present its defence on 29 January 2025 due to non-appearance. The Chief Magistrate proceeded in UETCL's absence and delivered judgment on 2 June 2025, awarding the 1st Respondent UGX 47,846,061 in special damages and both respondents UGX 1,000,000 each in general damages. UETCL's application to reopen its case was dismissed on 24 April 2025. UETCL then filed this revision application, arguing the Chief Magistrate lacked jurisdiction because the Electricity Act vests exclusive jurisdiction over electricity sector disputes in the Electricity Disputes Tribunal.

Issues

  1. Whether the application raises grounds for revision under Section 83 of the Civil Procedure Act.
  2. Whether the Chief Magistrate exercised jurisdiction not vested in him by law when hearing a dispute involving electricity infrastructure under the Electricity Act.
  3. What remedies are available to the parties.

Orders

  • The application for revision is allowed on the ground of lack of jurisdiction.
  • The judgment and orders of the Chief Magistrate in Civil Suit No. 30 of 2016, delivered on 2nd June 2025, are set aside as a nullity.
  • The 1st Respondent's claim in Civil Suit No. 30 of 2016 is dismissed/struck out for want of jurisdiction, without prejudice to referral to the Electricity Disputes Tribunal.
  • The alternative prayer for rehearing is denied.
  • Costs of this application and the proceedings below are awarded to the Respondents, to be paid by the Applicant.

Rules and key headnotes

Jurisdiction — Electricity Disputes Tribunal — Exclusive Jurisdiction over Electricity Sector Matters
Section 118(1) of the Electricity Act Cap 157 vests the Electricity Disputes Tribunal with jurisdiction to hear and determine all matters relating to the electricity sector referred to it, creating a specialized forum with exclusive jurisdiction over disputes involving licensed electricity infrastructure activities, including trespass and compensation claims arising from power line construction.
Ouster Clauses — Strict Construction — Necessary Implication of Exclusivity
While ouster of ordinary court jurisdiction must be strictly construed and preserved where possible, a comprehensive statutory framework that establishes a specialized tribunal, confers broad powers, provides specific referral mechanisms, and includes an ouster clause preventing collateral attack on tribunal decisions constitutes a necessary implication of exclusive jurisdiction, distinguishing such provisions from non-exclusive alternative dispute resolution mechanisms.
Electricity Infrastructure — Statutory Powers of Entry — Regulatory Framework
Section 67 of the Electricity Act confers specific statutory powers on licensed electricity transmission entities to enter land for constructing and maintaining electricity supply lines, subject to procedural safeguards including notice, minimal damage, and fair compensation, with objections lodged with the Electricity Regulatory Authority and appeals to the Electricity Disputes Tribunal, distinguishing such claims from ordinary common law trespass and warranting resolution through the sector-specific tribunal.
Revision — Grounds — Exercise of Jurisdiction Not Vested by Law
Under Section 83 of the Civil Procedure Act, the High Court may revise a magistrate's decision where the subordinate court exercised jurisdiction not vested in it by law, which occurs when a magistrate hears a suit whose subject matter is exclusively reserved to another court or tribunal by statute, rendering the proceedings void and liable to being set aside.
Costs — Discretionary Award — Conduct of Parties
Although a revision application succeeds on jurisdictional grounds, costs may be awarded against the successful applicant where the applicant's inordinate delay in raising the jurisdictional objection caused prejudice to the respondents, who incurred costs in protracted proceedings, as the court retains discretion under Section 27 of the Civil Procedure Act to depart from the general rule that costs follow the event for good cause.

Legislation cited (16)

Cases cited (12)

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Uganda Electricity Transmission Company Ltd v Biretwa and Another (HCT-01-LD-CR-0004-2025) [2025] UGHC 1144 (29 September 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.