Wakilii

Dott Services Ltd v Uganda National Roads Authority & Anor (Miscellaneous Cause No. 228 of 2017)

High Court · [2017] UGCOMMC 152 · 2017 Application Dismissed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Application for temporary injunction to restrain award of contract to another contractor pending adjudication proceedings
Decision
Application for temporary injunction dismissed with costs

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

An application for temporary injunction to restrain award of a road rehabilitation contract to another contractor pending adjudication was dismissed. The court held there was no triable issue because prior High Court proceedings had quashed the appointment of the adjudicator, meaning no adjudication was pending. The applicant's claimed losses were compensable in damages and thus not irreparable. The balance of convenience favoured the respondent road authority as grant of the injunction would indefinitely delay procurement while the incomplete road continued to deteriorate, posing danger to road users.

Outcome

Application for temporary injunction dismissed with costs

Facts

The applicant Dott Services Ltd and the first respondent Uganda National Roads Authority entered into a contract for rehabilitation of the Nakalama-Tirinyi-Mbale Road (102 km) at a contract price of UGX 73,363,489,275. A dispute arose and the applicant referred the matter to adjudication. On 9 May 2017, the first respondent invoked clause 59.4 of the contract and terminated it. The first respondent then offered the contract to another contractor and sought clearance from the Attorney General. The applicant brought this application seeking temporary injunctions to restrain both respondents from entering into or approving a contract with another contractor pending the adjudication proceedings. However, on 26 October 2017, the High Court in Miscellaneous Application No. 162 of 2017 had delivered a ruling quashing the appointment of the adjudicator Mr. Kafuko Ntuuyo.

Issues

  1. Whether the applicant has a prima facie case with a likelihood of success.
  2. Whether the applicant might suffer irreparable injury which would not adequately be compensated by an award of damages.
  3. Whether the balance of convenience is in favour of the applicant or respondents.

Orders

  • Application dismissed.
  • Costs awarded to the respondents.

Rules and key headnotes

Civil Procedure — Temporary Injunctions — Prima Facie Case — Requirement for Pending Proceedings
For there to be a triable issue warranting grant of a temporary injunction, there must be a pending case awaiting final determination; where the adjudicator whose proceedings form the basis of the injunction application has been removed by court order, there is no pending adjudication and therefore no triable issue.
Civil Procedure — Temporary Injunctions — Irreparable Injury — Adequacy of Damages
Irreparable damage means injury that is substantial or material and cannot be adequately compensated for in damages; financial loss and loss of reputation are compensable in damages and do not constitute irreparable injury for purposes of granting a temporary injunction.
Civil Procedure — Temporary Injunctions — Balance of Convenience — Public Infrastructure Projects
In determining the balance of convenience where grant of an injunction would indefinitely delay procurement for a road project while incomplete works and bridges deteriorate posing danger to road users, the balance of convenience favours the road authority over the contractor seeking to prevent award of the contract to another party.

Legislation cited (2)

Cases cited (7)

  • E.L.T Kiyimba Kaggwa v Haji Abdu Nasser Katende [1985] HCB 43
  • American Cyanamid Co v Ethicon Ltd [1975] 1 All ER 504
  • Daniel Mukwaya v Administrator General (HCCS No. 630 of 1993)
  • Erisa Rainbow Musoke v Ahamada Kezala [1987] HCB 81
  • Uganda National Roads Authority v Center For Arbitration & Dispute Resolution and Dott Services Ltd (Miscellaneous Application No. 162 of 2017)
  • Victoria Construction Works Ltd v Uganda National Roads Authority (HMA No. 601 of 2010)
  • J. K. Sentongo v Shell (U) Ltd [1995] 111 KLR 1

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.

Dott Services Ltd v Uganda National Roads Authority & Anor (Miscellaneous Cause No. 228 of 2017) [2017] UGCommC 152 (2 November 2017)
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.