Arconsuit Architects v A. Baumann (U) Ltd [1994] UGSC 5
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
The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, holding that the architect was entitled to its professional fees calculated as a percentage of the quantity surveyor's estimated construction cost, not the lower figure preferred by the trial judge. The delayed submission of the fee note did not disentitle the architect, as nothing in the agreed scale of professional fees barred late submission. Applying the agreed scale and English authority, an architect who has completed the work for which he was commissioned is entitled to payment according to the stage reached, even where the client abandons the project and the plans are not utilised. The trial judge erred in depriving the architect of its proper remuneration.
Outcome
Appeal allowed; judgment substituted for the appellant in the sum of US $14,256 (Shs 17,685,000) with interest at 20% per annum
Facts
The appellant, a firm of architects, was appointed by the respondent company on 6 March 1989 to carry out architectural work on two jobs: a vertical extension to the main office block of a building on Plot 7 Parliament Avenue, Kampala, and the conversion of two rear car parking sheds into offices. Remuneration was agreed as a percentage of the estimated project cost, in accordance with the scale of professional fees of the Commonwealth/Royal Institute of British Architects as adopted in Uganda. The appellant obtained planning and building-construction permission from Kampala City Council and prepared the requisite drawings for both jobs, reaching stage D. It was paid for the main office block. The respondent chose not to proceed with the car shed conversion because the work would be too expensive. On 11 July 1991 the appellant submitted Fee Note 1A for US $14,156, computed as 5.4% of the quantity surveyor's estimated conversion cost of Shs 240,560,920 plus disbursements. The respondent refused to pay, and the appellant sued in the High Court to recover the fees.
Issues
- Whether the architect's fee should be calculated on the quantity surveyor's estimated construction cost of Shs 240,560,920 rather than on Shs 150 million.
- Whether the late submission of the fee note disentitled the architect from claiming fees based on the proper estimated construction cost.
- Whether the trial judge erred in the assessment of the architect's remuneration.
Orders
- Appeal allowed.
- Judgment and orders of the High Court set aside.
- Judgment substituted for the appellant in the sum of US $14,256 or its equivalent in Uganda currency (Shs 17,685,000), with interest at 20% per annum from the date of the High Court judgment.
- Costs of the appeal and of the court below awarded to the appellant.
Rules and key headnotes
Cases cited (3)
- Stovin-Bradford v Volpoint Ltd [1971] 1 Ch 1007
- Thomas v Hammersmith Borough Council [1938] 3 All E.R. 203
- Landless v Wilson (1880) 8 R (Ct Sess) 288
Full judgment
The original judgment as reported. Read the original PDF before relying on any passage.