[2003] UGCommC 6

{\rtf1\ansi\ansicpg1252\uc1\deff0\stshfdbch0\stshfloch0\stshfhich0\stshfbi0\deflang2057\deflangfe2057{\fonttbl{\f0\froman\fcharset0\fprq2{\*\panose 02020603050405020304}Times New Roman;}{\f36\froman\fcharset238\fprq2 Times New Roman CE;} {\f37\froman\fcharset204\fprq2 Times New Roman Cyr;}{\f39\froman\fcharset161\fprq2 Times New Roman Greek;}{\f40\froman\fcharset162\fprq2 Times New Roman Tur;}{\f41\froman\fcharset177\fprq2 Times New Roman (Hebrew);} {\f42\froman\fcharset178\fprq2 Times New Roman (Arabic);}{\f43\froman\fcharset186\fprq2 Times New Roman Baltic;}{\f44\froman\fcharset163\fprq2 Times New Roman (Vietnamese);}}{\colortbl;\red0\green0\blue0;\red0\green0\blue255;\red0\green255\blue255; \red0\green255\blue0;\red255\green0\blue255;\red255\green0\blue0;\red255\green255\blue0;\red255\green255\blue255;\red0\green0\blue128;\red0\green128\blue128;\red0\green128\blue0;\red128\green0\blue128;\red128\green0\blue0;\red128\green128\blue0; \red128\green128\blue128;\red192\green192\blue192;}{\stylesheet{\ql \li0\ri0\widctlpar\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0 \fs24\lang2057\langfe2057\cgrid\langnp2057\langfenp2057 \snext0 Normal;}{\*\cs10 \additive \ssemihidden Default Paragraph Font;}{\*\ts11\tsrowd\trftsWidthB3\trpaddl108\trpaddr108\trpaddfl3\trpaddft3\trpaddfb3\trpaddfr3\trcbpat1\trcfpat1\tscellwidthfts0\tsvertalt\tsbrdrt\tsbrdrl\tsbrdrb\tsbrdrr\tsbrdrdgl\tsbrdrdgr\tsbrdrh\tsbrdrv \ql \li0\ri0\widctlpar\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0 \fs20\lang1024\langfe1024\cgrid\langnp1024\langfenp1024 \snext11 \ssemihidden Normal Table;}{ \s15\ql \li0\ri0\sb100\sa100\sbauto1\saauto1\widctlpar\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0 \fs24\lang2057\langfe2057\cgrid\langnp2057\langfenp2057 \sbasedon0 \snext15 \styrsid2387804 Normal (Web);}{\s16\ql \li0\ri0\widctlpar \tqc\tx4153\tqr\tx8306\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0 \fs24\lang2057\langfe2057\cgrid\langnp2057\langfenp2057 \sbasedon0 \snext16 \styrsid1578495 footer;}{\*\cs17 \additive \sbasedon10 \styrsid1578495 page number;}} {\*\latentstyles\lsdstimax156\lsdlockeddef0}{\*\pgptbl {\pgp\ipgp0\itap0\li0\ri0\sb0\sa0}}{\*\rsidtbl \rsid1578495\rsid1973314\rsid2387804\rsid4063387\rsid4601883\rsid5846135\rsid10683002\rsid13315367}{\*\generator Microsoft Word 11.0.5604;}{\info {\title THE REPUBLIC OF UGANDA }{\author Administrator}{\operator skivumbi}{\creatim\yr2009\mo4\dy6\hr10\min12}{\revtim\yr2009\mo4\dy6\hr10\min53}{\version4}{\edmins16}{\nofpages7}{\nofwords1822}{\nofchars10389}{\*\company JSI}{\nofcharsws12187} {\vern24689}}\paperw11906\paperh16838 \widowctrl\ftnbj\aenddoc\noxlattoyen\expshrtn\noultrlspc\dntblnsbdb\nospaceforul\formshade\horzdoc\dgmargin\dghspace180\dgvspace180\dghorigin1800\dgvorigin1440\dghshow1\dgvshow1 \jexpand\viewkind1\viewscale100\pgbrdrhead\pgbrdrfoot\splytwnine\ftnlytwnine\htmautsp\nolnhtadjtbl\useltbaln\alntblind\lytcalctblwd\lyttblrtgr\lnbrkrule\nobrkwrptbl\snaptogridincell\allowfieldendsel\wrppunct \asianbrkrule\rsidroot2387804\newtblstyruls\nogrowautofit \fet0{\*\ftnsep \pard\plain \ql \li0\ri0\widctlpar\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0 \fs24\lang2057\langfe2057\cgrid\langnp2057\langfenp2057 {\insrsid13315367 \chftnsep \par }}{\*\ftnsepc \pard\plain \ql \li0\ri0\widctlpar\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0 \fs24\lang2057\langfe2057\cgrid\langnp2057\langfenp2057 {\insrsid13315367 \chftnsepc \par }}{\*\aftnsep \pard\plain \ql \li0\ri0\widctlpar\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0 \fs24\lang2057\langfe2057\cgrid\langnp2057\langfenp2057 {\insrsid13315367 \chftnsep \par }}{\*\aftnsepc \pard\plain \ql \li0\ri0\widctlpar\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0 \fs24\lang2057\langfe2057\cgrid\langnp2057\langfenp2057 {\insrsid13315367 \chftnsepc \par }}\sectd \linex0\headery708\footery708\colsx708\endnhere\sectlinegrid360\sectdefaultcl\sectrsid4601883\sftnbj {\footer \pard\plain \s16\ql \li0\ri0\widctlpar \tqc\tx4153\tqr\tx8306\pvpara\phmrg\posxr\posy0\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid8591206 \fs24\lang2057\langfe2057\cgrid\langnp2057\langfenp2057 {\field{\*\fldinst {\cs17\insrsid13315367 PAGE }}{\fldrslt { \cs17\lang1024\langfe1024\noproof\insrsid4063387 1}}}{\cs17\insrsid13315367 \par }\pard \s16\ql \li0\ri360\widctlpar\tqc\tx4153\tqr\tx8306\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin360\lin0\itap0\pararsid1578495 {\insrsid13315367 \par }}{\*\pnseclvl1\pnucrm\pnstart1\pnindent720\pnhang {\pntxta .}}{\*\pnseclvl2\pnucltr\pnstart1\pnindent720\pnhang {\pntxta .}}{\*\pnseclvl3\pndec\pnstart1\pnindent720\pnhang {\pntxta .}}{\*\pnseclvl4\pnlcltr\pnstart1\pnindent720\pnhang {\pntxta )}} {\*\pnseclvl5\pndec\pnstart1\pnindent720\pnhang {\pntxtb (}{\pntxta )}}{\*\pnseclvl6\pnlcltr\pnstart1\pnindent720\pnhang {\pntxtb (}{\pntxta )}}{\*\pnseclvl7\pnlcrm\pnstart1\pnindent720\pnhang {\pntxtb (}{\pntxta )}}{\*\pnseclvl8 \pnlcltr\pnstart1\pnindent720\pnhang {\pntxtb (}{\pntxta )}}{\*\pnseclvl9\pnlcrm\pnstart1\pnindent720\pnhang {\pntxtb (}{\pntxta )}}\pard\plain \s15\qc \li0\ri0\sb100\sa240\sbauto1\sl360\slmult1 \widctlpar\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0\ipgp1\pararsid5846135 \fs24\lang2057\langfe2057\cgrid\langnp2057\langfenp2057 {\b\ul\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid2387804\charrsid4601883 THE REPUBLIC OF UGANDA }{ \b\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid2387804\charrsid4601883 \line }{\b\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid1578495 \par }{\b\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid2387804\charrsid4601883 IN THE HIGH COURT OF UGANDA AT }{\b\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid2387804\charrsid1578495 KAMPALA}{\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid2387804\charrsid4601883 \line }{ \b\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid2387804\charrsid4601883 (COMMERC}{\b\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid1578495 IAL DIVISION) \line CIVIL SUIT NO. 1}{\b\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid2387804\charrsid4601883 06 OF 2002 \line }{ \b\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid10683002 \par }{\b\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid2387804\charrsid4601883 TOM }{\b\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid1578495\charrsid4601883 MUKOMAZI:}{\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid2387804\charrsid4601883 :::::::::::::}{ \lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid1578495 ::::::::::::::::::::::::}{\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid2387804\charrsid4601883 ::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: }{\b\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid2387804\charrsid4601883 PLAINTIFF \line }{\b\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid10683002 \par }{\b\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid2387804\charrsid4601883 VERSUS \line }{\b\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid10683002 \par }{\b\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid2387804\charrsid4601883 JINDA INTERNATIONAL TEXTILE }{\b\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid10683002\charrsid4601883 CORPORATION:}{\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid2387804\charrsid4601883 ::::::::::: }{ \b\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid2387804\charrsid4601883 DEFENDANT }{\b\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid10683002 \par }\pard \s15\ql \li0\ri0\sb100\sa240\sbauto1\sl360\slmult1\widctlpar\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0\ipgp1\pararsid5846135 {\b\ul\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid10683002\charrsid4601883 BEFORE:}{ \ul\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid2387804\charrsid4601883 }{\b\ul\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid2387804\charrsid4601883 THE HON. MR. JU}{\b\ul\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid10683002 STICE OKUMU WENGI. \line \par JUDGMENT:-}{\b\ul\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid2387804\charrsid4601883 \line }{\b\ul\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid10683002 \par }{\b\ul\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid2387804\charrsid4601883 FACTS }{\ul\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid2387804\charrsid4601883 :- }{\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid2387804\charrsid4601883 \line }{ \lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid10683002 \par }{\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid2387804\charrsid4601883 The Plaintiff sued to recover a sum of Shs. 87,241,095/= and general damages from the Defendant. The suit arises from a January 2001 building contract by which t he Defendant expected the Plaintiff to carry out extensive refurbishment of the buildings of the Uganda Spinning Mills factory in Lira. It is alleged that out of the total invoiced sum of Shs. 147,541,095/= the Defendant paid only Shs. 60,300,000/= leavin g the claimed sum unpaid, hence this suit. The Defendant denied liability contending that the Plaintiff did not carry out the works as expected or properly and laid a counterclaim for Shs. 91,785,091/=. At the outset it was agreed that a building surveyors

Registration Board nominated M/s DEC Consultants a firm of Building Economists who went and carried out the survey and make a report. The lead consultant r. C. I. Inyangat presented the written report in court, which was duly exhibited, and he was cross-ex a}{\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid1973314 mined on }{\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid2387804\charrsid4601883 it. The surveyors also file their bill for Shs. 13,301,569/= on 11/7/2002. By their}{ \lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid1973314 }{\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid2387804\charrsid4601883 letter of 17/2/2003 the consultants reported that matter of the parties had paid out their fees as ordered to be settled on a equal basis. Although no issues were framed the idea was that the valuer would report on if the works had been done and their values. After he was cross-examined the Plaintiff called one witness while the defendant called two. Each counsel then filed their written submissions. \line }{ \lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid5846135 \par }{\b\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid2387804\charrsid4601883 2. }{\b\ul\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid2387804\charrsid4601883 The }{\b\ul\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid5846135\charrsid4601883 Quantity}{ \b\ul\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid2387804\charrsid4601883 Surveyors }{\b\ul\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid5846135\charrsid5846135 Report}{\ul\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid2387804\charrsid4601883 . }{ \lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid2387804\charrsid4601883 \line According to Mr. Cyprian Igulot Inyangat, he obtained a first class Honours Degree in building Economics from Nairobi University in 1975. He is also a member of the Architects Association of Kenya and Uganda. The witness had presented a report on 6/8/2002 for filing in the Commercial Court Registry having been appointed on 27/6/2002 to do the job. The report provided an executive summary with details of Contract, Works carried out, Quality of materials and workmanship. He also provide d a valuation method used as well as the valuations themselves. According to Mr. Inyangat he travelled to Lira with representatives of both parties after prior meeting, discussion and agreement of method of work. He went on to state that verification was d one on site in the presence of people whose names are set out in the report. \line }{\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid5846135 \par }{\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid2387804\charrsid4601883 The witness explained that he was given a full access having set out the results of his verification exercises. He told court in cross-examination: - \line }{ \lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid4063387 \par }\pard \s15\ql \li720\ri0\sb100\sa240\sbauto1\sl360\slmult1\widctlpar\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin720\itap0\ipgp1\pararsid4063387 {\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid5846135\charrsid4601883 \'93I}{ \lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid2387804\charrsid4601883 am not aware of the contest of quality of work. I am aware they were contesting the values of the works. I made valuations on the basis of the contract prices. I did not use prices outside the contract ... I did not understand that the court wanted us to alter prices. We agreed o n site to use contract rates. Only on quantities did we do our verification. Prices are for the parties. We could not invent our own prices. The court order required me to make a valuation report. The value of the work had to be in accordance with the val ues in the contract. I read the contract. The Plaintiff was required to ensure good }{\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid5846135\charrsid4601883 workmanship and materials at clause 4 C}{\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid2387804\charrsid4601883 . \'94 \par }\pard \s15\ql \li0\ri0\sb100\sa240\sbauto1\sl360\slmult1\widctlpar\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0\ipgp1\pararsid4063387 {\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid2387804\charrsid4601883 The witness then conceded that the work done was poor and poor in the absence of quality specifications. He went }{\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid5846135\charrsid4601883 on: -}{\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid2387804\charrsid4601883 \line }{\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid4063387 \par }\pard \s15\ql \li720\ri0\sb100\sa240\sbauto1\sl360\slmult1\widctlpar\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin720\itap0\ipgp1\pararsid4063387 {\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid2387804\charrsid4601883 I would say the work was incomplete. But to the stage it was done, it was not properly done. It was below standard. There is absence of standards specification to be met in the contract. To me it was below standard. It is a subjective issue. I would say work that is below is good. There was no complaint to me that the work was poor. ... We did quantities and the quantities were correct. I still maintain that the parties signed for no rules. The quality was subjective. Workmanship of any grade is paid for. Parties sig ned for what they got. There was no specification at to standard. The document I was given did not give me standards.\'94 \line }{\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid4063387 \par }\pard \s15\ql \li0\ri0\sb100\sa240\sbauto1\sl360\slmult1\widctlpar\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0\ipgp1\pararsid4063387 {\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid2387804\charrsid4601883 The Quantity Surveyor gave his verdict. He suggested that the work done was valued at Shs. 144,667,452/=. There is also a statement regarding the quality of work. And the figure given does not exclude money paid by the Defendant to the Plaintiff. \line }{ \lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid4063387 \par }{\b\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid2387804\charrsid4601883 3. }{\b\ul\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid2387804\charrsid4601883 The Case of the }{\b\ul\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid4063387\charrsid4601883 Plaintiff: -}{ \ul\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid2387804\charrsid4601883 }{\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid2387804\charrsid4601883 \line The Plaintiff then called Tom Muwanga Kabogoza (PW1) }{ \lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid2387804\charrsid4063387 a }{\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid2387804\charrsid4601883 Consultant businessman who also doubles as a vehicle and parts importers. The witness told court that the total contract price was Shs. 339,717,740/=. He explained the works done claiming that it totalled Shs. 147,000,000/= out of which Shs. 60,300,000/= was paid leaving the balance sued for outstanding. The wi tness in cross-examination told }{\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid4063387\charrsid4601883 court: -}{\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid2387804\charrsid4601883 \line }{\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid4063387 \par }\pard \s15\ql \li720\ri0\sb100\sa240\sbauto1\sl360\slmult1\widctlpar\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin720\itap0\ipgp1\pararsid4063387 {\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid2387804\charrsid4601883 \'93 In this contract there was a requirement of verification. Yes, payment was to be done after verification. We put in our claims. ... To my knowledge, I don\rquote t know if verification was ever done. ... The Employer was to verify. We were not to be present. We don\rquote t have a document from them that}{\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid4063387 }{\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid2387804\charrsid4601883 verification was done. From the contract we were required to ensure good workmanship, the use of good materials.\'94 \line }{\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid4063387 \par }\pard \s15\ql \li0\ri0\sb100\sa240\sbauto1\sl360\slmult1\widctlpar\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0\ipgp1\pararsid4063387 {\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid2387804\charrsid4601883 He then argued for his work contradicting the report of the Quality Surveyor appointed by court. \line }{\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid4063387 \par }\pard \s15\ql \li720\ri0\sb100\sa240\sbauto1\sl360\slmult1\widctlpar\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin720\itap0\ipgp1\pararsid4063387 {\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid4063387 \'93}{ \lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid2387804\charrsid4601883 The work was not below standard. To me one would not be telling the truth if he said the work was below standard. If a report stated that the work was below standard, I would not ask court to rely on it.\'94 \line }{\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid4063387 \par }\pard \s15\ql \li0\ri0\sb100\sa240\sbauto1\sl360\slmult1\widctlpar\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0\ipgp1\pararsid4063387 {\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid2387804\charrsid4601883 The witness the n went on to state that he had carried out extra works. He also changed his mind to say that while the Quantity Surveyors report was correct, the work was standard. HE also denied receiving payment of Shs. 87,055,250/=. \line }{ \lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid4063387 \par }{\b\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid2387804\charrsid4601883 4. }{\b\ul\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid2387804\charrsid4601883 The Defendant\rquote s Case. }{\b\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid2387804\charrsid4601883 \line }{ \lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid2387804\charrsid4601883 Mr. Guo Dong testified for the Defendant as DW1. He told court that he was the Defendant\rquote s Managing Director. He }{\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid4063387\charrsid4601883 said: - }{\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid2387804\charrsid4601883 \line }{\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid4063387 \par }\pard \s15\ql \li720\ri0\sb100\sa240\sbauto1\sl360\slmult1\widctlpar\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin720\itap0\ipgp1\pararsid4063387 {\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid4063387 \'93}{ \lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid2387804\charrsid4601883 I contracted Plaintiff to carry out certain works. I did agree on quotations for the work. The Plaintiff did not carry out the work. He just start and stopped. At very beginning it stopped. N ot reach to any of what it in bill of quantities. I made payments. We saw him very active at beginning, then we paid him deposit. ... I stopped paying in end of year. He just pulled out and we stopped payment as we also saw no work done. This was in September. We found job never done. He is just like in the beginning. Our Surveyor advised us our payment was too much for job done. Before paying we did not inspect.\'94 \line }{ \lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid4063387 \par }\pard \s15\ql \li0\ri0\sb100\sa240\sbauto1\sl360\slmult1\widctlpar\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0\ipgp1\pararsid4063387 {\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid2387804\charrsid4601883 The witness then told court that he had engag ed the Lira District Engineer who had advised that the job was valued at only Shs. 5 million. He insisted that substantial work had been done. \par The Defendant then called Engineer Paul Sesanga a former Lira Resident District Commissioner (RDC) had directed him to verify the civil works in dispute. H}{\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid4063387 e}{ \lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid2387804\charrsid4601883 said that he did so and submitted a report estimating the work at 10% of the value in the Bills of Quantities namely Shs. 5.9 million only. He later told court that further work added the figure to Shs. 24 million . He conceded in cross- examination that he could revise the figure upwards. \line }{\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid4063387 \par }{\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid2387804\charrsid4601883 5. }{\b\ul\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid4063387 The submissions o}{\b\ul\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid2387804\charrsid4601883 f Counsel }{ \ul\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid2387804\charrsid4601883 \emdash }{\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid2387804\charrsid4601883 \line }{\b\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid4063387 (a)}{ \b\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid2387804\charrsid4601883 . }{\b\ul\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid2387804\charrsid4601883 For the }{\b\ul\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid4063387\charrsid4601883 Defendant: -}{ \ul\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid2387804\charrsid4601883 }{\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid2387804\charrsid4601883 \line The Defendant first contended that the plaint did not disclose a cause of action in as far as payment of claim was dep endent on determination of contract sum and verification of works. He contended that there were conditions precedent. Secondly the Defendant contended that the Plaintiff\rquote s witness Tom Mukomazi (PW1) had failed to establish conditions precedent had been fulfilled and if he had ensured good workmanship over which his evidence was in contradiction with that of the Quantity Surveyor. \line }{ \lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid4063387 \par }{\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid2387804\charrsid4601883 It was further contended that a claim for Shs. 54 million to cover extra works had not been agreed on. As such this claim would be excluded. He also argued that the valuers report should not be relied upon, as instead of valuing the work done he had applied prices in the bills of quantities. He then claimed that Shs. 91,789,091/= had been over paid to the Plaintiff as advances. He argued that the sum of Shs. }{\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid4063387 87,055,250/}{\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid2387804\charrsid4063387 =}{\i\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid2387804\charrsid4601883 }{ \lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid2387804\charrsid4601883 be paid in a decree in favour of the defendant on his counterclaim. \line }{\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid4063387 \par }{\b\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid2387804\charrsid4601883 (b). }{\b\ul\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid2387804\charrsid4601883 For}{\b\ul\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid4063387 the Plaintiff:-}{ \b\ul\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid2387804\charrsid4601883 }{\b\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid2387804\charrsid4601883 \line }{\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid4063387\charrsid4063387 It}{ \b\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid4063387 }{\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid2387804\charrsid4601883 was argued that the Plaintiff had proved his case and was entitled to the sum claimed on the basis of evidence of the Qu antity Surveyor. It was then contended that no evidence had been led to explain the Shs. 91,789,091/= pleaded in the counterclaim. \par }{\b\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid2387804\charrsid4601883 6. }{\b\ul\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid4063387\charrsid4601883 Opinion}{\b\ul\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid2387804\charrsid4601883 of }{ \b\ul\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid4063387\charrsid4601883 Court: -}{\ul\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid2387804\charrsid4601883 }{\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid2387804\charrsid4601883 \line From the evidence there was a contract for Civil Works intended to renovate the Uganda Spinning Mills , which the Plaintiff executed with the Defendant. It was in writing and there were bills of quantities as well as a total sum agreed to. The Plaintiff did some work, made claims, but was paid part of his claim. Plaintiff admits receiving Shs. 60,300,000/ = out of a total claim of Shs. 147 million. From the receipts exhibited I have found that between May and August 2001, the Defendant paid to the Plaintiff a sum of Shs. 88,795,250/=. This includes the figure of Shs. 18,535,250/= paid on 17/8/2001. Some pay m ents are said to have been made but Plaintiff did not sign for them. These were not set out. Then there is a payment of US$ 9,000 made on 1/5/200 1, out of which Shs. 9,260,000/= was to be applied to the contract according to notes as Exhibit D.2. The tot al would then be Shs. 98,055,250/=. \line }{\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid4063387 \par }{\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid2387804\charrsid4601883 According to the Quantity Surveyor the work done was worth Shs. 144,667,452/=. This would leave a balance of Shs. 46,612,202/=. There is an item for extra works, which totalled Shs. 24,287,445 according to the Quantity S urveyor. The District Engineer could not contradict this. \line }{\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid4063387 \par }{\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid2387804\charrsid4601883 Now firstly, I do not agree that the plaint discloses no cause of action. The contract sum was ascertained and the exercise of verification was not a mutually executory item as it was left to the e mployer. The employer did verify in his own way and decided to terminate the contract and to withhold further payments. He engaged his own assessment and used a Civil Servant to support his decision. It is my view that a claim for unpaid balance of work d o me would be sustained on the pleadings. The extra works would not be excluded and would tend to point to the fact that perhaps the contract had more flaws to itself than even the Quantity Surveyor has pointed out, namely the extent of work required was no t thoroughly negotiated as were other aspects of such civil works contracts. The Defendant was to some extent not there to continually check on the work done and may have over trusted the businessman contractor. As such the workmanship did not}{ \lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid4063387 }{\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid2387804\charrsid4601883 appear to con form to the expectations of the employer. But the safeguards for this were neglected and the contractor could have taken full advantage of the laxity around the works to do less than what he ought to have done. The valuer was of the opinion that absence o f standards specification led to poor materials procurements as the quantities were not tied to any quality and workmanship to the prudent view of the contractor. \line }{\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid4063387 \par }{\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid2387804\charrsid4601883 I have been quite impressed by the cold professional way in which the Quantity Surveyor did h is work. I think he did it more than satisfactorily. He was also not the flattering type as he clearly told court that the work was below standard. He however certified that work had been done although its quality would tend to negate its wholesomeness. \line }{\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid4063387 \par }{\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid2387804\charrsid4601883 In conclusion, and to do justice I would be of the view that I would deduct from the Plaintiff\rquote s claim a total of Shs. 12,612,202/= being about 25% of Shs. 46,612,202/= on account of poor workmanship and materials used. This would leave the }{\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid4063387\charrsid4601883 liability}{ \lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid2387804\charrsid4601883 of the Defendant to the Plaintiff at Shs. 34,000,000/= only. I am unable on the evidence to say that the counterclaim has been sustained. In the result I enter judgment for the Plaintiff against the Defendant in the sum of Shs. 34,000,000/=. Each party shall pa y 50% of the fees of the Surveying Consultants. No further order as to costs will be made, as the suit is only partially successful. \line }{\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid4063387 \par }{\b\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid2387804\charrsid4601883 JUDGE \line 4/4/2003.}{\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid2387804\charrsid4601883 \par }\pard\plain \qc \li0\ri0\sl360\slmult1\widctlpar\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid5846135 \fs24\lang2057\langfe2057\cgrid\langnp2057\langfenp2057 {\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid2387804\charrsid4601883 \par }}