Saba Gifco Uganda Limited V DFCU Bank Limited & 2 Others (Civil Suit No. 157 of 2017)
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 the plaintiff was responsible for the collapse of the joint venture boundary wall due to poor workmanship by its contractors and negligent failure to manage storm water drainage on its plot. The defendants' excavation and construction works, conducted within legal requirements and at a safe distance from the wall, did not cause the collapse. The plaintiff breached its duty under the Joint Venture Agreement to construct the wall to appropriate standards and to provide a five-year warranty. The court dismissed the plaintiff's claim and partially allowed the defendant's counterclaim, ordering the plaintiff to refund 70% of the defendant's contribution (USD 9,975) with costs.
Outcome
Plaintiff's claim dismissed; counterclaim by 3rd defendant partially allowed with monetary award and costs
Facts
Saba Gifco Uganda Ltd and DFCU Ltd entered into a Joint Venture Agreement in October 2015 to construct a perimeter wall on their adjoining plots at Namanve Industrial Park, each contributing USD 14,250. The plaintiff appointed Sight Construction Uganda Ltd as contractor. The wall was completed and handed over. In 2016, DFCU Ltd engaged CRJE (East Africa) Ltd to carry out construction works including excavation on its adjoining plot. The plaintiff expressed concerns that the works would jeopardize the wall's structural integrity. Despite assurances from the defendants, cracks appeared and portions of the wall eventually collapsed. The plaintiff alleged the defendants' construction works caused the collapse and damage to its internal water channel. A structural audit commissioned by the plaintiff attributed the collapse to the defendants' excavation. The defendants contended that the collapse resulted from the plaintiff's poor construction, use of substandard materials, and failure to manage storm water drainage.
Issues
- Whether the defendants are responsible for the collapse of the plaintiff's perimeter walls and its internal water channel?
- Whether the defendants are liable for the loss suffered by the plaintiffs, if any?
- Whether the defendants breached their statutory duties and obligations in the manner in which they carried out developments that compromised the structural integrity of the shared perimeter wall.
- What remedies are available to the plaintiff?
Orders
- Suit dismissed.
- Counterclaim partially allowed.
- Plaintiff ordered to pay the 3rd defendant USD 9,975 being 70% of the monies invested in the failed joint venture.
- Costs of the suit awarded to the counter-claimant.
Rules and key headnotes
Legislation cited (6)
- Evidence Act s.101
- Evidence Act s.102
- Evidence Act s.103
- Evidence Act s.106
- National Environment Management Authority Act Cap 153
- Public Health (Building) Rules
Cases cited (5)
- Donogue v Stevenson [1932] AC 562
- Kiga Lane Hotel Ltd v Uganda Electricity Distribution Company (HCCS No. 557 of 2004)
- Blyth v Birmingham Water Works (1856) 11 Ex 781
- Gianfelice Pappalardo Vs. Gary Hau ZASCA 160
- Barklie v Bridle 1956 (2) SA
Full judgment
The original judgment as reported. Read the original PDF before relying on any passage.