Arconsult Architects v A. Baumann (U) Limited (Civil Appeal 23 of 1993)

Observed later treatment

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.

Holding

The Supreme Court held that, where the parties agreed the architect's remuneration would be governed by the scale of professional fees of the institute of architects adopted in Uganda, the architect was entitled to fees computed as a percentage of the quantity surveyor's estimated construction cost for the stage reached. The late submission of the fee note did not disentitle the appellant, as the scale contained no provision barring late submission. An architect who complies with instructions and produces the work for which it was commissioned is entitled to its fees even if the project is abandoned and the plans are not used. The appeal was allowed and judgment substituted for the appellant.

Outcome

Appeal allowed; High Court judgment set aside and judgment entered for the appellant in the sum of US $14,256 (shs 17,685,000/=) with interest at 20% per annum and costs.

Facts

The appellant, a firm of architects, was appointed by the respondent company in 1989 to carry out architectural work on two jobs concerning a building on Plot No. 7 Parliament Avenue, Kampala: a vertical extension of the main office block, and the conversion of two rear car-parking blocks (the car shed) into offices. The work involved securing planning and building permission from Kampala City Council, preparing drawings, and supervising construction. The parties agreed the appellant would be paid a percentage of the estimated project cost in accordance with the scale of professional fees of the institute of architects adopted in Uganda. The appellant secured the permissions and prepared the drawings for both jobs. The respondent carried out and paid for the main office-block work but abandoned the car-shed construction on the ground of expense. The appellant submitted a fee note for the car-shed work, calculated at 5.4% of the quantity surveyor's estimated cost of shs 240,560,920 plus disbursements. The respondent refused to pay, and the appellant sued to recover the fees.

Issues

1. Whether the trial judge erred in basing the architect's remuneration on the figure of shs 1,500m used for securing planning approval instead of the quantity surveyor's estimated construction cost of shs 240,560,920.
2. Whether the late submission of the fee note disentitled the appellant to its professional fees.
3. Whether the trial judge erred in the assessment of the appellant's professional fees.

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/=).
• Interest on the substituted sum at 20% per annum from the date of the High Court judgment.
• Costs of the appeal and in the court below awarded to the appellant.

Rules and key headnotes

Cases cited (3)

• Stovin-Bradford v Volpoint Properties Ltd [1971] Ch 1007
• Thomas v Hammersmith Borough Council [1938] 3 All ER 203
• Landless v Wilson (1880) 8 R (Ct of Sess) 289

Cases citing this judgment (2)

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.

• Uganda Breweries Limited v Uganda Railways Corporation (Civil Appeal 6 of 2001)
• Willy Owacha v Ringa Enterprises Co.Ltd & another [1995] UGSC 17

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