Wakilii

Mohammed Saru v Jinja Central Division Council (High Court Civil Suit No. 223 of 2009)

High Court · [2012] UGCOMMC 95 · 2012 Judgment for Plaintiff AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
First instance civil suit for recovery of money for construction works done and quantum meruit, with third party claim against Attorney General
Decision
Judgment entered for plaintiff for UGX 93,798,016 plus interest and costs. Third party claim dismissed.

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

Held that the defendant local government was liable to pay the plaintiff for work done and compensation costs arising from the contract's termination. The termination was mutually agreed through a memorandum of understanding after the defendant, acting on IGG recommendations, stopped the plaintiff from construction but directed it to maintain the site for 34 months. The defendant failed to follow contractual termination procedures under clause 25. Under quantum meruit, the plaintiff was entitled to compensation for maintaining the site as directed. The Attorney General was not liable as the IGG only made recommendations to the local government, which was obliged to implement them in accordance with law. Plaintiff awarded UGX 93,798,016 plus interest.

Outcome

Judgment entered for plaintiff for UGX 93,798,016 plus interest and costs. Third party claim dismissed.

Facts

The plaintiff was assigned a construction contract for the defendant's office block. After commencing and substantially performing the contract, the IGG investigated and found the work substandard, recommending that the contract be terminated and re-tendered. The defendant stopped the plaintiff from construction in June 2005 but directed it to guard and maintain the site. In November 2005, the defendant purported to terminate the contract, which the plaintiff contested as non-compliant with contractual provisions. The plaintiff remained on site until August 2008. The defendant commissioned the Ministry of Works and Transport to assess the plaintiff's work in April 2008. The parties then executed a memorandum of understanding terminating the contract and obliging the defendant to verify and pay the plaintiff's claims. The defendant failed to pay, leading to this suit.

Issues

  1. What is the quantum of damages that the plaintiff is entitled to?
  2. Who is liable to pay the plaintiff — the defendant or the third party (Attorney General)?

Orders

  • The plaintiff is awarded Uganda shillings 10,377,516/= comprising unpaid work and interest on delayed payments up to April 2008.
  • The plaintiff is awarded compensation of Uganda shillings 83,420,500/= for site maintenance and related costs.
  • Interest is awarded on Uganda shillings 6,364,238/= at commercial bank lending rate of 25% per annum from May 2008 till payment.
  • Interest is awarded on the compensation sum of Uganda shillings 83,420,500/= at 25% per annum from December 2008 to the date of judgment.
  • Further interest on compensation costs at 21% per annum from the date of judgment till payment in full.
  • The defendant shall pay the costs of the suit to the plaintiff and the third party.
  • Third party claim against the Attorney General dismissed.

Rules and key headnotes

Termination of Contract — Procedural Requirements under Contract — Failure to Follow Clause 25
Where an employer purports to terminate a construction contract but fails to comply with the contractual termination procedure (including notice of default and opportunity to remedy), and the parties subsequently execute a memorandum of understanding for mutual termination, the original unilateral termination is ineffective and the contract is deemed terminated by mutual agreement.
Quantum Meruit — Services Rendered at Employer's Request after Suspension
Under the doctrine of quantum meruit, where a contractor is directed by the employer to stop construction work but to maintain the site, guard the premises, keep it well lit, and prevent vandalism over an extended period, the contractor is entitled to reasonable remuneration for such services rendered at the employer's instance, even though the original contract is suspended or terminated.
Inspector General of Government — Liability for Recommendations — Local Government Autonomy
The Inspector General of Government (IGG) is not liable for the consequences of recommendations made in the exercise of its constitutional and statutory functions. It is the duty of the local government or authority receiving the recommendations to implement them in accordance with the contract and the law. The local government, as an independent body corporate, is responsible for its own actions taken pursuant to IGG recommendations.
Quantum Meruit — Loss of Profit on Unperformed Work
A claim for loss of profit on remaining work not executed cannot be sustained under the doctrine of quantum meruit, which is limited to compensation for services actually rendered or work done, not for anticipated future work.
Assessment of Compensation — Reliance on Expert Technical Reports
Where a technical assessment of work done and compensation owing is carried out by an expert body (Ministry of Works and Transport) at the request of the defendant, and the defendant adduces no contrary technical evidence, the court may rely on that expert report to assess quantum of damages and compensation, subject to the court's evaluation of which heads of claim are legally sustainable.
Interest — Award at Commercial Lending Rate under Contract Terms
Where a construction contract provides that unpaid certificates shall attract interest at commercial bank lending rate, and the employer fails to verify and pay claims as agreed in a termination memorandum, the court may award interest at the prevailing commercial rate from the time payment became due, having regard to inflation and currency depreciation.

Legislation cited (14)

Cases cited (3)

  • Gordon Sentiba and 2 Others v Inspectorate of Government (Civil Appeal No. 6 of 2008)
  • Bank of Baroda Uganda Ltd v Wilson Buyondo Kamuganda (Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 10 of 2004)
  • Jivanji v Sanyo Electrical Co Ltd [2003] 1 EA

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Mohammed Saru v Jinja Central Division Council (High Court Civil Suit No. 223 of 2009) [2012] UGCommC 95 (17 August 2012)
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.