High Court at Luwero affirms that the Electricity Regulatory Authority only has jurisdiction over compensation disputes where notice and consent were given; it cannot adjudicate trespass claims.

Waboga David
Sep 17
4 min read

Facts

The Plaintiff, Ssembajjwe Abdul Kiwooma, filed a suit against Uganda Electricity Transmission Company Ltd (UETCL) alleging trespass on his land (kibanja) in Luwero.

The Plaintiff alleged that in January 2018, the Defendant constructed the Karuma-Kawanda 400KV Transmission Line through his kibanja (customary land) located at Kigavu Cell, Kasiso Road, Luwero Sub-County, Luwero District, without his consent, knowledge, or prior compensation.

The Plaintiff claimed that the Defendant’s actions constituted trespass, permanently depriving him of the use and enjoyment of his land. He sought a declaration of trespass, compensation at the current market value, general damages, and other reliefs.

The suit was initially filed on March 1, 2019, as Civil Suit No. 173/2019 at the High Court of Uganda, Kampala Land Division, and later transferred to the High Court at Luwero, where it was assigned a new suit number (0277/2022, later referenced as 0242/2022).

The Defendant raised a preliminary objection, arguing that;

The High Court lacked jurisdiction since the Electricity Act vests original jurisdiction in the Electricity Regulatory Authority (ERA).
The suit was time-barred under Section 70(2) of the Electricity Act, which requires claims to be filed within one year before ERA.

Issues

Whether the High Court have jurisdiction to entertain the Plaintiff’s suit for trespass, or is the Electricity Regulatory Authority the appropriate forum under the Electricity Act?
Whether the Plaintiff’s suit time-barred under Section 70(2) of the Electricity Act for being filed beyond the one-year statutory period without an application for extension?

Defendant’s Submissions

The Defendant argued that the Electricity Act, specifically Section 70(2) and (3), mandates that disputes regarding compensation for acts of a licensee (such as UETCL) on private land must first be lodged with the ERA. If dissatisfied, the aggrieved party may appeal to the Electricity Disputes Tribunal, with the High Court having only appellate jurisdiction after administrative remedies are exhausted.

The Defendant cited precedents: Nansubuga Nadia v. Uganda Electricity Transmission Company Ltd (HCCS No. 1013 of 2018) and Juma Bitalo v. The Attorney General & Anor (HCCS No. 0150 of 2021) to support its position that the ERA has exclusive original jurisdiction.

The Defendant submitted that the cause of action arose in January 2018, and the suit, filed in March 2019, exceeded the one-year limitation period prescribed by Section 70(2) of the Electricity Act. No application for an extension was made, rendering the suit time-barred.

Plaintiff’s Submissions

The Plaintiff argued that the High Court has unlimited original jurisdiction in all civil matters under Article 139(1) of the 1995 Constitution of Uganda (as amended).

The Defendant’s filing of a Written Statement of Defence on April 3, 2019, and participation in proceedings (including calling witnesses) constituted submission to the High Court’s jurisdiction, waiving any challenge under Order 9 Rule 3 of the Civil Procedure Rules.

The Plaintiff’s claim was for trespass, not merely a dispute over compensation, as the Defendant entered his land without notice or consent, violating Section 67(2) and (4) of the Electricity Act and Article 26 of the Constitution (protection from deprivation of property).

The Plaintiff contended that the ERA’s jurisdiction under Section 70(2) applies only to compensation disputes where the licensee complies with Section 67’s notice requirements. Since no notice was served, the ERA lacked jurisdiction, and the High Court was the appropriate forum.

The Plaintiff argued that the limitation period under Section 70(2) did not apply, as the claim was for trespass, not compensation within the ERA’s purview. The absence of notice under Section 67(4) further negated the applicability of the limitation period.

Court’s Findings

The Court examined Sections 67 and 70 of the Electricity Act. Section 67(1) permits a licensee to place electric supply lines on private land but requires minimal damage, prompt compensation, and, under Section 67(2) and (4), prior notice and consent of the landowner unless otherwise agreed.

Section 70(1)–(3) mandates that compensation disputes be lodged with the ERA within one year, with appeals to the Electricity Disputes Tribunal. However, this applies only where the licensee complies with Section 67’s notice and consent requirements.

In this case, the Defendant admitted in its pleadings that it did not notify the Plaintiff of its intent to use the land, asserting only that the Plaintiff was not in use of the land during the survey. This failure to comply with Section 67(2) and (4) rendered the ERA’s jurisdiction inapplicable, as the Plaintiff’s claim was for trespass, not a compensation dispute under Section 70.

The Court held that the High Court, with unlimited original jurisdiction under Article 139(1) of the Constitution, was the proper forum to hear the trespass claim.

Since the Court found that the ERA lacked jurisdiction over the trespass claim, the one-year limitation period under Section 70(2) was inapplicable. The second preliminary objection was dismissed as a consequence.

The Court noted that the Defendant’s failure to challenge jurisdiction in its Written Statement of Defence and its participation in proceedings (contrary to Order 9 Rule 3) suggested acquiescence to the Court’s jurisdiction. The Court cautioned the Defendant against actions bordering on abuse of court process.

Holding

The High Court dismissed the preliminary objection, confirming its jurisdiction to hear the trespass claim.
The matter will proceed to trial on the merits.
Costs of the objection were ordered to be in the cause.
Costs of the preliminary objection were to be in the cause (i.e., determined at the conclusion of the main suit).

Key Principles

Under Article 139(1) of the Constitution, the High Court retains jurisdiction unless expressly ousted by statute.
ERA only has jurisdiction over compensation disputes where notice and consent were given; it cannot adjudicate trespass claims.
Forcible entry without notice/consent constitutes trespass, falling under the High Court, not ERA.
Limitation under Section 70(2) – The one-year limitation applies only to ERA compensation claims, not trespass actions before the courts.
A party that participates in proceedings without timely raising jurisdictional objections may be found to be acting in bad faith.

Read the full case below