Wakilii

Uganda National Roads Authority v Dott Services Limited and Another (Civil Appeal No. 234 of 2021)

Court of Appeal · [2022] UGCA 246 · 2022 Appeal Dismissed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
First civil appeal from High Court (Commercial Division) dismissal of a suit for recovery of money had and received
Decision
Appeal dismissed with costs; High Court dismissal of UNRA's suit upheld

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

The Court of Appeal dismissed UNRA's appeal, holding that the compensation paid to Dott for delays occasioned by UNRA under the road works contracts was properly based on the Compensation Events clause (Clause 44 of the General Conditions of Contract). Having voluntarily assessed and accepted liability to pay the compensation in 2015, UNRA was estopped under section 114 of the Evidence Act from later asserting that Dott was not entitled to the money. The money-had-and-received claim failed. Allegations of fraud against Dott and PEC were not proved, and PEC was not negligent because UNRA relied on its own independent evaluation, not PEC's recommendation. UNRA was entitled to neither damages nor interest.

Outcome

Appeal dismissed with costs; High Court dismissal of UNRA's suit upheld

Facts

In 2010 UNRA entered two road works contracts with Dott for the reconstruction of the Tororo-Mbale (49km) and Mbale-Soroti (103km) roads, each for an 18-month duration. UNRA delayed handing over sites, issuing strip maps and providing construction drawings. Dott claimed compensation of Ug. Shs. 45,556,811,050 for delay. UNRA engaged PEC to evaluate the claim; PEC recommended Ug. Shs. 33,204,834,600. Following further discussions and independent legal advice, UNRA, through its Executive Director, agreed to and paid Dott a lesser amount of Ug. Shs. 29,858,532,068 in 2015. In 2016 UNRA conducted an internal audit which concluded Dott had been overpaid, and sued Dott for money had and received and PEC for professional negligence, alleging fraud. The High Court dismissed the suit, finding the payment was properly assessed and authorised by UNRA itself and that no fraud or negligence was proven.

Issues

  1. Whether the preliminary objections to the competency of the grounds of appeal should be sustained.
  2. Whether there was a proper contractual basis for UNRA's payment of Ug. Shs. 29,858,532,068 to Dott.
  3. Whether the money paid to Dott should be refunded under the doctrine of money had and received.
  4. Whether PEC and Dott committed acts of fraud that tainted the payment.
  5. Whether PEC was liable to UNRA for professional negligence.
  6. Whether UNRA was entitled to damages and interest.

Orders

  • The preliminary objections raised by the respondents are overruled.
  • All grounds of appeal fail.
  • The appeal is dismissed with costs to the respondents.

Rules and key headnotes

Construction Contracts — Compensation Events — Contractor's Entitlement to Compensation for Employer Delay
Where a construction contract designates the employer's failure to give site possession or to issue drawings and instructions on time as compensation events, the contractor is entitled to compensation for delays so occasioned, and the contract price may be increased and/or the completion date extended.
Estoppel — Estoppel by Conduct — Party Precluded from Denying Accepted Liability
Where a party, by its own voluntary assessment and acceptance, causes another to believe and act on the position that a payment is due, it is estopped under section 114 of the Evidence Act from later asserting that the payment was not owed.
Restitution — Money Had and Received — Payment Made Pursuant to Contract
The doctrine of money had and received does not permit recovery where the money was paid pursuant to a subsisting contractual obligation and the payer voluntarily accepted its liability to pay.
Fraud — Standard of Proof — Requirement to Adduce Evidence of Intentional Perversion of Truth
A party alleging fraud must adduce evidence proving an intentional perversion of truth intended to induce another to part with a valuable thing or surrender a legal right; allegations unsupported by evidence, or which are misconceived on the facts, cannot sustain a finding of fraud.
Professional Negligence — Reliance — No Liability Where Advice Not Acted Upon
A professional adviser cannot be liable in negligence for advice that was not relied upon; where the party makes its own independent evaluation and pays a different amount from that recommended, the recommendation was not acted upon and no negligence liability arises.
Appeals — Memorandum of Appeal — Generality of Grounds and Raising New Matters
Although grounds of appeal that fail to specify the precise points wrongly decided offend Rule 86(1) of the Court of Appeal Rules, and Order 6 Rule 7 prohibits raising matters not pleaded, a court may in the interests of justice consider all grounds where the central issue requires a full re-evaluation of the evidence.

Legislation cited (8)

Cases cited (25)

  • Bamugye v Tropical African Bank Ltd (Civil Appeal No. 48 of 2007)
  • Freeman vs. Jeffries (1869) L.R 4 Ex. 189
  • Zaabwe v Orient Bank Ltd (Civil Appeal No. 4 of 2006)
  • Kampala Bottlers Ltd v Damanico Ltd (Civil Appeal No. 22 of 2002)
  • Donoghue v Stevenson [1932] AC 562
  • Blyth vs. Birmingham Water Works Co. 11 Ex. 784
  • Baali Jackson v Mansons (U) Ltd (Civil Suit No. 37 of 2012)
  • Interfreight Forwarders (U) Ltd v East Africa Development Bank (Civil Appeal No. 33 of 1992)
  • Captain Gandy vs. Caspair Air Charter Ltd (1956) EACA 139
  • Fangmin v Belex Tours and Travel Ltd (Civil Appeal No. 6 of 2013)
  • Electoral Commission and Another v Tumwesigye (Election Petition Appeals Nos. 73 and 74 of 2021)
  • Attorney General v Baliraine (Civil Appeal No. 79 of 2003)
  • Byaruhanga v Musoke (Civil Appeal No. 2 of 1998)
  • MTN Uganda Ltd v GQ Saatchi and Another (Civil Appeal No. 98 of 2017)
  • Kasibante v Shell (U) Ltd (Civil Suit No. 542 of 2016)
  • Byakika v National Social Security Fund (Civil Appeal No. 193 of 2011)
  • Nsubuga v Rwomushoro (Civil Appeal No. 102 of 2012)
  • Masaka Municipal Council v Takaya (Civil Appeal No. 1073 of 2015)
  • Hedley Byrne & Co Ltd v Heller & Partners Ltd [1964] AC 465
  • Caparo Industries plc v Dickman [1990] 1 All ER 568
  • Luyimbazi v Stanbic Bank Uganda Ltd (Civil Appeal No. 2 of 2019)
  • Mwesigwa v Petrol Uganda Ltd (Criminal Appeal No. 97 of 2009)
  • Uganda v Ssimbwa (Criminal Appeal No. 37 of 1993)
  • Wood v Capita Insurance Services Ltd [2017] UKSC 24
  • Commonwealth v Verwayen [1990] HCA 39

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.

Uganda National Roads Authority v Dott Services Limited and Another (Civil Appeal No. 234 of 2021) [2022] UGCA 246 (28 September 2022)
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.