Court name
Supreme Court of Uganda
Case number
Civil Suit 93 of 1993
Judgment date
8 November 1994

Arconsuit Architects v A Baumann (U) Ltd (Civil Suit 93 of 1993) [1994] UGSC 5 (08 November 1994);

Cite this case
[1994] UGSC 5
Short summary:

Civil Procedure, Appeals and reviews, Contract Law, Performance of contract

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF UGANDA
AT MENGO

(CORUM: MANYINDO, D.C.J., ODOKI, J.S.C., TSEKOOKO, J.S.C.,) CIVIL APPEAL NO. 23 OF 1993
BETWEEN
ARCONSUIT ARCHITECTS::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: APPELLANT
AND
A. BAUMANN (U) LTD :::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: RESPONDENT..
(Appeal from Judgment and Order of sigh Court at Kampala (Kireju J) dated 25th June, 1993.)
IN
CIVIL SUIT NO. 404 OF l992.)

 

JUDGMENT OF TSEKOOKQI J.S.C.
The appellant is a firm of architects. The Respondent is a limited liability company and proprietor of building situated on Plot No, 7 Parliament Avenue, Kampala.

 

The appellant sued the respondent in the High Court claiming for US $14156 or its equivalent in Uganda Shillings alleged to be due for Professional Service rendered pursuant to a contract made between the appellant and the respondent, on 6th March, 1989.

 

The facts as found by the learned trial Judge and as gathered from the proceedings are these. The respondent desired to make vertical extension on the main Office block of the said building by addition of an extra floor. The respondent also desired to convert two rear car parking blocks into Offices. I will hereinafter refer to the two sets of buildings as main office block and the car shed respectively.

 

The respondent o 6/3/1989 appointed the appellant to execute the architectural work on the jobs (see Exh P.1). The two jobs were treated as two contracts. The jobs involved securing from the Kampala City Couni1 (KCC) the planning permission, the building construction permission, the drawing of requisite documents (drawings) and supervision of the buildings. The two parties held discussions on 24th, 27th and 28th February, 1989, prior to appointment of the appellant as architects. The agreed position was reduced into writing on l/3/1989 (see Exh Dl). During those discussions, it was agreed that the respondent would pay the appellant by way of fees a certain percentage of the (estimated) project cost.

 

The appellant secured from KCC the planning permission drew the requisite drawings for construction and secured KCC approval for building construction in respect of vertical extension on the main office building and paid the appellant for its architectural work in respect thereof.

 

The respondent was unable to proceed with construction work on the car shed. According to the evidence of DW2 (Ronnie Anglezarks Richardson) construction work on car shed did not proceed because