Roko Construction Limited v Uganda Breweries Limited (Miscellaneous Application 2016 of 2024)
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 granted unconditional leave to appear and defend where the applicant raised bona fide triable issues including whether a construction contract was fully performed, whether the final account reconciliation was disputed, and whether an arbitration clause barred the summary suit. The applicant disputed owing UGX 157,611,127 as unrecovered advance payment, contending it completed the works and the respondent owed it money instead. The court held that these disputes could not be determined without hearing evidence from both parties and were not suitable for summary judgment.
Outcome
Applicant granted unconditional leave to defend the summary suit
Facts
The Respondent contracted the Applicant to carry out construction works for the CAPEX Expansion Foundation of 6 No. DPV Tanks and advanced UGX 578,268,983 to facilitate commencement of works. The advance payment was to be recovered through interim payment certificates as construction progressed. The Respondent alleged the Applicant failed to complete the works within agreed timelines, prompting issuance of a Certificate of Non-Completion dated 13 November 2020. A reconciliation of accounts was conducted with the Applicant's participation, resulting in a final account which the Respondent contended showed an outstanding balance of UGX 157,611,127 as unrecovered advance payment. The Applicant disputed the final account, contending it performed the contract to completion and that the Respondent owed it UGX 45,940,214. The Respondent instituted a summary suit for recovery of the alleged debt, and the Applicant applied for leave to appear and defend.
Issues
- Whether the Applicant should be granted unconditional leave to appear and defend Civil Suit No. 0989 of 2024.
- Whether the Applicant has demonstrated a bona fide triable issue of fact or law warranting leave to defend.
- Whether the suit is barred by section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act due to an arbitration clause.
- Whether the Applicant fully recovered the advance payment through performance of the contract.
- Whether the final account is disputed and requires investigation.
Orders
- The Applicant is granted unconditional leave to appear and defend Civil Suit No. 0989 of 2024.
- Costs of this application shall abide the outcome of the main suit.
Rules and key headnotes
Legislation cited (4)
Cases cited (3)
- Maluku Inter Global Trade Agency v Bank of Uganda [1985] HCB 65
- Geoffrey Gatete & Anor v William Kyobe (Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 7 of 2005)
- UAP Old Mutual Insurance UG Ltd v Rwenzori Hydro (PVT) Ltd (Miscellaneous Application No. 446 of 2024)
Full judgment
The original judgment as reported. Read the original PDF before relying on any passage.