Wakilii

A2 Z Infra Engineering Ltd v Forest City Engineering Techinical Services Ltd (Civil Appeal No. 47 of 2016)

Court of Appeal · [2019] UGCA 2068 · 2019 Appeal Partly Allowed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
First appeal from High Court (Commercial Division) judgment in a construction sub-contract dispute
Decision
Appeal partly allowed; claim for supply of stubs disallowed and costs split 50/50; sum due to respondent adjusted to UShs 367,091,511.72

Observed later treatment

Cited — treatment unverified cited in 1 (treatment unverified) Sequitur — Uganda’s citator · Derived from citing cases in the Wakilii corpus — not an assertion that this case is good law.

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.

No adverse treatment recorded Cited 1 time with no adverse treatment recorded; not yet tested on the merits. Derived from citing cases in the Wakilii corpus — a deterministic signal, not legal advice.

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 Court of Appeal, as first appellate court, re-appraised the evidence in a construction sub-contract dispute. It upheld most of the trial court's findings but allowed the appeal on two grounds: the claim for supply of 247 stubs was not proved due to irreconcilable contradictions, and costs should not have been wholly awarded to the respondent given the appellant's counterclaim largely succeeded. The Court corrected several arithmetical errors in the trial court's computation, adjusting the sum due to the respondent to UShs 367,091,511.72. It declined to award the appellant general damages because it had withheld payments due to the respondent and did not come with clean hands. Costs were split 50/50.

Outcome

Appeal partly allowed; claim for supply of stubs disallowed and costs split 50/50; sum due to respondent adjusted to UShs 367,091,511.72

Facts

The Government of Uganda, through the Rural Electrification Agency, contracted A2Z (an Indian company) to construct a 33kv High Voltage Line and Associated Voltage Lines from Katakwi to Moroto. A2Z sub-contracted Forest City Engineering by a memorandum of agreement dated 14 September 2010 for survey, pole erection, stringing, dressing, installation, testing and handover, with the scope costed at UShs 1,320,280,170. During performance, Forest City hired a crane lorry to A2Z and supplied hardware materials. A2Z terminated the sub-contract citing fundamental breach after Forest City's workers began abandoning the site over unpaid wages. Forest City sued for unlawful termination and unpaid works. The High Court (Commercial Division) found in favour of Forest City for UShs 341,267,762 with interest at 10% per annum, plus costs. A2Z appealed on evaluation of evidence relating to the vehicle hire, survey distance, stubs, hardware materials, percentage of works performed, unused materials, general damages on its counterclaim, and costs.

Issues

  1. Whether the trial Judge properly evaluated evidence in awarding UShs 14,000,000 for hire of the respondent's motor vehicle.
  2. Whether the trial Judge correctly found that the respondent surveyed a distance of 236.6km.
  3. Whether the trial Judge erred in finding the respondent supplied 247 stubs entitling it to a balance.
  4. Whether the respondent proved supply of line hardware material worth UShs 108,044,500.
  5. Whether the trial Judge used a correct formula to assess the respondent's 60% contract performance and award.
  6. Whether the appellant was entitled to the value of materials supplied and not used in the works.
  7. Whether the appellant was entitled to general damages on its counterclaim after termination was found lawful.
  8. Whether the respondent should have been awarded 100% of costs where the appellant's counterclaim largely succeeded.

Orders

  • Grounds 3 and 10 of the appeal succeed.
  • Grounds 1, 2, 4, 5, 6, 7 and 9 fail and are dismissed.
  • Trial court's award adjusted, correcting arithmetical errors.
  • Appellant awarded 50% of the costs in the appeal and in the lower court.

Rules and key headnotes

Evidence — Special Damages — Requirement of Strict Proof and Consistency
A claim for supply of goods on credit that rests on contradictory and unexplained documentary evidence — including receipts predating the purchase order and inconsistent quantities and payments — is not proved on a balance of probabilities and must fail.
Civil Procedure — First Appeal — Duty to Re-appraise Evidence
A first appellate court has a duty under rule 30(1)(a) of the Judicature (Court of Appeal Rules) Directions to re-appraise the evidence and reach its own conclusion, including correcting arithmetical errors made by the trial court in computing awards.
Contract Law — General Damages — Denial Where Claimant Lacks Clean Hands
A court may decline to award general damages for breach of contract to a party who, though innocent of the breach that justified termination, itself withheld payments due to the other party and thereby contributed to the difficulties, since such a claim is not brought with clean hands.
Civil Procedure — Costs — Discretion Where Counterclaim Largely Succeeds
Under section 27(2) of the Civil Procedure Act, where a defendant's counterclaim largely succeeds, it is a wrong exercise of discretion to award the plaintiff the full taxed costs; a proportionate apportionment of costs is appropriate.
Contract Law — Assessment of Work Done on Terminated Construction Contract
Where no joint expert assessment of work done at termination is available, a court may reasonably estimate the percentage of the contract performed from the evidence of stages completed and compute the sum due by reference to the contract value less amounts already paid.

Legislation cited (3)

Cases cited (4)

  • Siree vs Lake Turkana El Molo Lodges Ltd. (2000) 2 EA 520
  • Kyagulanyi Coffee Ltd v Steven Tumusange (Civil Appeal No. 9 of 2001)
  • Takiya Kashwahiri and another v Kajungu Denis (Civil Appeal No. 85 of 2011)
  • Jennifer Rwanyindo Aurelia and another v School Outfitters (U) Ltd (Civil Appeal No. 53 of 1999)

Cases citing this judgment (1)

How later Ugandan judgments in the Wakilii corpus have cited this case. Treatment labels come from Sequitur — Uganda’s citator — each backed by a verbatim span from the citing judgment, and are not an assertion that this case is, or is not, good law.

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

A2 Z Infra Engineering Ltd v Forest City Engineering Techinical Services Ltd (Civil Appeal No. 47 of 2016) [2019] UGCA 2068 (20 December 2019)
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.