Wakilii

Macro Technics Limited and Engineer Fred Mubiru v Total Uganda Limited and Eskorn Contractors Limited [2026] UGHC 652

High Court · 2026 Judgment Partly Allowed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
First instance civil suit for fraudulent misrepresentation, negligence, breach of statutory duty and unjust enrichment arising from unauthorised use of an engineer's name on a construction project
Decision
Judgment entered for the 2nd plaintiff against the 1st defendant with damages, interest, costs and a permanent injunction; the 1st plaintiff's claim dismissed and no cause of action found against the 2nd defendant

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 court held that a project owner who submits and displays the name of a registered engineer as the structural engineer of its building project, without engaging or obtaining the engineer's authority, commits fraudulent misrepresentation within the meaning of Derry v Peek and contravenes the statutory naming requirements for building operations. Liability rested solely on the 1st defendant as project owner; the contractor which merely erected signage on the owner's instructions was largely an independent contractor and no cause of action lay against it, so there was no vicarious or joint liability. The 1st plaintiff company proved no misrepresentation of its own name. The 2nd plaintiff obtained a permanent injunction, UGX 50,000,000 general damages, UGX 50,000,000 punitive damages, 22% interest and costs.

Outcome

Judgment entered for the 2nd plaintiff against the 1st defendant with damages, interest, costs and a permanent injunction; the 1st plaintiff's claim dismissed and no cause of action found against the 2nd defendant

Facts

The 1st defendant, an energy company, engaged the 2nd defendant, a construction firm, under a contract dated 8 May 2019 for heavy modernisation works at its Total Kiboga service station (Approval No. KBG SS001/2018). The 1st defendant sent the 2nd defendant working and structural drawings by email which named the 2nd plaintiff, a registered engineer and managing director of the 1st plaintiff, as the structural engineer for the project. Acting on those instructions, the 2nd defendant erected a site billboard bearing the 2nd plaintiff's name as structural engineer. The 2nd plaintiff had never been contracted, paid or instructed, never visited the site, and never designed, supervised or certified any works; he learned of the project only when acquaintances began asking him about its progress. His name was nonetheless held out to the authorities and the public as responsible for the structural integrity of the building. The 1st defendant led no evidence at trial. The 2nd defendant's site engineer confirmed the drawings came from the 1st defendant. The 1st plaintiff's name appeared in no document or evidence tendered. The project was completed and certified in July 2019.

Issues

  1. Whether the plaintiffs have a cause of action against the 1st defendant.
  2. Whether the plaintiffs have a cause of action against the 2nd defendant.
  3. Whether the attribution of the name and professional attributes of the 2nd plaintiff in the construction of the 1st defendant's petrol station at Kiboga was lawful.
  4. Whether the 1st defendant is vicariously liable for the attribution of the name and professional attributes of the 2nd plaintiff.
  5. Whether, in the alternative, the defendants are jointly and severally liable.
  6. What remedies are available to the parties.

Orders

  • The 1st plaintiff has no cause of action against the defendants and its case is dismissed.
  • The 2nd plaintiff has a cause of action against the 1st defendant.
  • There was unlawful attribution of the name and professional attributes of the 2nd plaintiff by the 1st defendant at the construction project at Kiboga as its structural engineer.
  • The 1st defendant is singularly liable for the attribution of the 2nd plaintiff's name as structural engineer at its site at Kiboga.
  • A permanent injunction is issued against the 1st defendant, its agents and employees restraining further attribution of the 2nd plaintiff's name.
  • The 2nd plaintiff is awarded general damages of UGX 50,000,000.
  • The 1st defendant is ordered to pay punitive damages of UGX 50,000,000.
  • The awards attract interest at 22% per annum from the date of judgment until payment in full.
  • The 2nd plaintiff is awarded costs of the suit.
  • No order for a structural and compliance audit of the project.

Rules and key headnotes

Tort Law — Fraudulent Misrepresentation — Unauthorised Use of a Professional's Name
A false representation made knowingly, without belief in its truth, or recklessly as to its truth constitutes fraudulent misrepresentation; holding out a registered engineer as the structural engineer of a project he was never engaged for, without his authorisation, is unlawful and amounts to fraudulent misrepresentation.
Tort Law — Vicarious Liability — Independent Contractor — Liability of Project Owner
Where a project owner supplies structural drawings naming a professional and the contractor merely implements those instructions by erecting site signage, the misrepresentation is the sole responsibility of the owner and cannot be imputed to the contractor, so no joint or vicarious liability arises.
Employment & Labour — Employee or Independent Contractor — Control, Integration and Business Reality Tests
A party engaged to complete a fixed task for a one-off sum, retaining control over the means and manner of performance, remains an independent contractor notwithstanding contractual supervision by the engaging party's project engineer, since such supervision is a quality-assurance mechanism rather than an indicium of employment.
Civil Procedure — Cause of Action — Requirements and Res Judicata Effect of Prior Ruling
A plaint discloses a cause of action where it shows that the plaintiff enjoyed a right, that the right was violated and that the defendant is liable; where a prior interlocutory ruling in the same suit has already determined that a cause of action exists against a defendant, that question is res judicata.
Damages & Quantum — General Damages — Measure Where a Professional's Name Is Misused
General damages for the unauthorised use of a professional's name may be measured by reference to the fee the wrongdoer would have incurred had it properly engaged the professional, assessed against the value of the underlying contract and the inconvenience and injury suffered.
Damages & Quantum — Punitive (Exemplary) Damages — Malicious, Reckless or Outrageous Conduct
Punitive or exemplary damages are awarded to punish exceptionally outrageous, malicious or reckless conduct, such as using a professional's name to avoid the cost of engaging him while exposing him to liability for a project he knew nothing about.
Tort Law — Permanent Injunction — Protection Against Continued Misuse of Professional Identity
Although completion of a project may render relief concerning that project otiose, a permanent injunction may still issue to restrain a wrongdoer from any further unauthorised use of the claimant's professional name in other projects.

Legislation cited (7)

Cases cited (12)

  • Paul Sentambule v Jane Musoke (Civil Appeal No. 122 of 2015)
  • Tororo Cement Co. Ltd v Frokina International Ltd (Civil Appeal No. 21 of 2001)
  • Uganda Aluminium Ltd v Restuta Twinomugisha (Civil Appeal No. 22 of 2000)
  • Auto Garage V Motokov No. 3 of [1971] E.A 514
  • Derry V Peek (1889) 14 App Cas 337
  • Ready Mixed Concrete (South East) Ltd v. Minister of Pensions and National Insurance [1968] 2 QB 497
  • Stevenson Jordan and Harrisson vs. MacDonald & Evans (1952)
  • Godfrey Kyamukama v Makerere University Business School (Labour Dispute Reference No. 147 of 2019)
  • Market Investigations Vs minister of Social security (1969)
  • Lubowa and Scovia Ayikoru v Victoria Seeds (Labour Dispute Reference No. 185 of 2016)
  • Hadley v Baxendale (1894) 9 Exch. 341
  • Maruri Venkata Bhaskar Reddy & 2 Ors v Bank of India (Uganda) Ltd (Civil Suit No. 804 of 2014)

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Macro Technics Limited and Engineer Fred Mubiru v Total Uganda Limited and Eskorn Contractors Limited [2026] UGHC 652 (5 June 2026)
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.