The High Court has ordered Roko Construction Limited to pay US$1.39 million (about Shs 8.9 billion) to Assa Abloy (U) Ltd for doors and ironmongery accessories supplied and installed at Mulago National Referral Hospital.
The court ruled that Roko must pay US$1,391,667.58, the outstanding balance under the supply contract, together with interest at nine per cent per annum from August 20, 2020, until payment in full.
The dispute arose from the supply and installation of steel doors, wooden door leaves, frames and ironmongery accessories at the national referral hospital. Assa Abloy sued Roko and the Attorney General in 2022, seeking to recover the outstanding amount, general damages for breach of contract, interest and costs.
Court records show that on June 30, 2017, Roko placed an order with Assa Abloy for 2,398 steel door sets with steel frames, wooden leaves, transom panels and fixing accessories valued at US$1,567,188. The items were to be manufactured and shipped from the supplier’s factory in Dubai, United Arab Emirates, for installation at Mulago Hospital.
The order was subsequently revised to 2,716 door sets valued at US$2,216,324.61. On January 18, 2019, Roko placed another order for assorted ironmongery worth US$365,342.97.
The total value of the two orders was US$2,581,667.58. The supplies were delivered and installed at Mulago Hospital between August 31, 2017, and October 31, 2018.
Under the agreement, payment was due within 45 days of delivery. However, Assa Abloy told court that Roko paid only US$1.19 million, leaving an outstanding balance of US$1,391,667.58, which it had failed to settle despite repeated demands.
Roko disputed the claim, arguing that it was not supported by a contract between the parties. The construction company further contended that, if it had placed any orders, they were for only 1,784 doors, which it said had been paid for in full.
The court rejected the defence relating to defective or non-compliant goods, observing that it had not been pleaded. It also found that the principal document relied upon in support of that argument was unauthenticated and that the schedules reflected the position in 2018 rather than 2020.
The court further observed that Roko was deemed to have accepted the goods by retaining and installing them for years without communicating any rejection.
Roko also relied on the argument that a seller who repossesses goods may be considered to have elected to rescind a contract, potentially preventing recovery of the unpaid balance.
However, the court found no evidence that Assa Abloy had physically removed 1,358 doors from the hospital premises, as alleged.
“There is no evidence, from either party, to show that 1,358 doors were physically removed from the hospital premises by the plaintiff. There is no evidence of physical removal, no evidence of the plaintiff’s vehicles or personnel removing doors from the site, no evidence from any hospital staff or contractor that doors…” Justice Stephen Mubiru observed.
The court consequently dismissed the suit against the Attorney General, with costs, but entered judgment in favour of Assa Abloy against Roko.
“The suit against the Attorney General is dismissed with costs. Instead, judgment is entered for the plaintiff against Roko,”Justice Stephen Mubiru ruled.
