Umeme Limited v Lwembawo (EDT COMPLAINT 2 of 2012) [2013] UGIC 1 (13 December 2013)

### ELECTRICITY DISPUTES TRIBUNAL

#### Complaint No. 02 of 2012

# Umeme Limited (Umeme) versus Herbert Lwembawo:

# Case: Alleged Illegal Energy Consumption using Meter Bypass

### 1. Background

Mr. Herbert Lwembawo's power supply from Umeme Limited (hereinafter called Umeme) was disconnected on the 1st March 2012 on the grounds that the energy meter to his house was found bypassed. This meant that he was allegedly consuming electrical energy, which was not being measured, and hence not being paid for it. Therefore to Umeme, pursuant to the clause 7.6.1(c) and 15.5 of the Electricity (Primary Grid Code) Regulations 24/2003 which provides for immediate disconnection of the supply when a customer is found obtaining power supply illegally, they were justified to disconnect his supply immediately. Under the same Clause, Umeme went ahead and imposed upon him a charge of UGX 295,000; which they required him to clear before his power supply could be reconnected.

Mr. Lwembawo on the other hand contended that the alleged meter bypass was instead actually a circuit breaker bypass. He further contended that this bypass was not of his own making but that of Umeme's contractor so as circumvent a faulty circuit breaker. Umeme had contracted a company to install pre-payment meters in this area of Kitintale and it is this company that Mr. Lwembawo blamed for the bypass.

Mr. Lwembawo allegedly took his complaint to the Electricity Regulatory Authority (ERA) and claims that ERA, "agreed with all the grounds he raised in his appeal". He did not furnish to the Tribunal the said ruling from ERA. He alleged that despite ERA'S promise to communicate to the concerned parties within a week (towards the end of March 2012), no response was given to him.

Feeling frustrated and inconvenienced for lack of electricity in his house, Mr. Lwembawo sought redress from the Electricity Disputes Tribunal (EDT). The complaint was registered with EDT as EDT 02/2012.

In a nutshell, Mr. Lwebawo' complaint is that his electricity supply was unjustifiably disconnected on the false pretext that he was consuming power which bypassed a meter, whereas it was a circuit breaker bypass, carried out by Umeme's Contractor. He prayed that the power supply to his house be restored and the fine/charge of UGX 295,000 levied or imposed against him by Umeme be cancelled.

# 2. Interim measures

f

Having listened to both Mr. Lwembawo and Umeme, and having examinined the circumstances obtaining, particularly the fact that Mr. Lwembawo is permanently employed in government and is a landlord of the affected house, and that his power supply had been disconnected for several months, EDT ordered as follows:

- 1. Mr. Lwembawo pays the UGX 295,000 to Umeme as security. - 2. Umeme restores power supply to Mr. Lwembwo until the case is disposed of. - 3. Mr. Lwembawo pays his subsequent bills until the case is disposed of.

# Lwembawp's submission

- Mr. Lwembawo submitted that the case of meter bypass against him was false because: - 1. He had no access to a meter installed away from his house; above on a pole. - 2. His energy consumption had been consistent; before and after the Umeme Limited (Umeme) findings and that Umeme has failed to produce evidence of changed consumption during the disputed period. - 3. He was convinced that the wire that was found "around" his meter was to bypass a faulty circuit breaker and that Umeme's Contractor did this during the original installationandthereforeareresponsibleforthebypass. He said that since Umeme had not audited the Contractor's work, this bypass could not have been seen any earlier.

#### Umeme's Submission

- Umeme brought two of its technical employees as key witnesses (DW1; Simon Bukenya and DW2; Grace Kiwanuka). These were examined in chief by the Legal Counsel for Umeme (Mrs. Susan Nafula Bukenya) and cross examined by Mr. Lwembawo. - DW1 & DW2 had competently and technically showed that a meter bypass was found on a meter that was identified to measure electrical energy to Mr. Lwembawo's house and none other. - 2. The photographic evidence availed only proved the fact of a meter bypass. - 3. The strange and extra wire found on the line that fed power to Mr. Lwembawo's house was not for the bypass of the circuit breaker (CB) but for the meter bypass. In the view of Umeme,this was a deliberate action on the part of Mr Lwembawo to consume energy illegally by bypassing the meter that otherwise ought to have measured the power that he was consuming. It could not have been an error or any other intention since their Contractor was competent and had successfully done similar work on all other meters without a complaint from any other customer including those Within the same box and pole, which Lwembawo shared with others.

#### **EDT Ruling**

EDT, having obtained all evidence submitted by Mr. Lwembawo and Umeme, and examined the same (including the technical aspects) finds as follows:

- 1. Lwembawo's insistence that the bypass that was discovered to be leading to his housewas a CB bypass and not a meter bypass is technically incorrect; the power to his house would not have been switched off if the bypass was that of CB. If Lwembawo's argument is assumed correct, then: (1)Umeme's official (DW1) would not have been able to identify the Lwembawo's house by using the CB as a switch as given in evidence. [DW1 technically explained to EDT how, after discovering the alleged meter bypass, systematically identified each house that was connected to the respective meter within the box. Therefore, he pinpointed the culprit's house to be Lwembawo's and disconnected the power to it using the respective CB]. (2) He would not have been able to switch off power from Lwembawo's house using the CB if it had been bypassed. - 2. The information adduced from DW1 and DW2 was on the evaluation of the Tribunal found to be technically correct in that what was found in relation to the power supply to Mr. Lwembawo was that this was a meter bypass and not a bypass of the circuit breaker as Lwembawo would have liked the Tribunal to believe. The photographic evidence availed to the Tribunal, by all means, indicated a meter bypass and not a CB by pass. - 3. The Tribunal agrees with Lwembawo's assertion that during that period, of meter bypass, the records of Umeme would show zero energy consumption, as a meterbypass means that energy consumed does not pass through the meter. It also means that the CB still functions as a switch, and power can be disconnected from the consumer's house using the same. This was how DW1 was able to disconnect power from Lwembawo's house. - 4. The point that the CR was found faulty the following day is immaterial; anybody could have tampered with the wiring or instruments within the box housing the meters after the bypass discovery. - 5. We however note that Umeme did not provide Mr. Lwembawo's energy - question i.e. a rew days any given period, better still during the period in Despite the contents of the immediate foregoing paragraph of the hunges conclude that there was an attendance foregoing paragra conclude that there was an attempt to bypass the meter through which Lwembawo's house received electrical energy supplied by Umeme and that it is not likely that the company that installed the meters made the mistake that resulted in the state of affairs found to be obtaining at Mr. Lwembawo's house; a wire connected around the meter so as to bypass it and result into profile for Mr. Lwembawo's previous energy consumption relative to be consumption during the period he is alleged to have bypassed the meter, coupled with lack of onsite tests that would show that the energy into Lwembawo's house was actually not being metered, renders it difficult for the Tribunal to conclude that he was actually consuming unmetered electrical energy.

- 7. Umeme levied a sum of UGX 295,000 upon Mr. Lwembawo and in its letter of 17th July 2012 to the Tribunal being a fee charged on Lwembawo's energy account. Concurrently in the same letter, Umeme also refers to the amount of UGX 295,000 as a penalty and also as a fine. The amount of UGX 295,000 could be a sum total of a fee and penalty/fine. In addition, how does Umeme determine the sum of UGX 295,000 in absence of a consumption profile, if it is a fee? If it is a penalty, it was important to stipulate the provision for the penalty amount. In this circumstance, we find it very difficult to sustain this sum of UGX 295,000 levied against Lwembawo by Umeme and rule that it be accordingly credited to Mr. Lwembawo. - 8. Since Mr. Lwembawo's power was earlier reinstated; the status quo be maintained, provided he continues to meet his obligations to Umeme in respect of energy to be consumed or consumed at the premises in issue. - 9. Each party is to meet its costs.

| Decent | |-------------------------------------------------| | Dated at Kampala this $\frac{1}{2}$ day of 2013 | | Charles Okoth- Owor] | | hairman | | 11111mg<br>Anaclet Turyakira]<br>Vice Chairman | | Eng. Dr. Moses Musaazi] |

Member