The Court of Appeal has upheld a High Court decision ordering the Uganda National Roads Authority-UNRA to pay 31.4 billion Shillings to Parambot Breweries and Distillers for damages caused to their premises and equipment during the construction of Gayaza-Zirobwe road in 2012.
In a unanimous decision written by Justice Christopher Gashirabake with agreement from Muzamiru Kibeedi and Oscar Kihika, the court held that it was wrong for UNRA to seek to walk away from the advice of the Attorney General who had consented to a settlement; claiming that they were never a party to the case. “Whereas the appellant is a body corporate, the supervision rights are reserved by the minister under the Ministry of Works and Transport. The report of the Chief Mechanical Engineer was conceded to by the Attorney General, who was the 1st defendant at the trial court and this, in my view, would be binding on the appellant as a government body under the Ministry of Works and Transport,” the Court held.
UNRA that was the appellant had argued that the Attorney General’s consent to the report of the Chief Mechanical Engineer of the Ministry of Works did not amount to an opinion of the Attorney General as defined in the constitution. But the Court disagreed arguing that the expertise of the Chief Mechanical Officer was sought and given, and the Attorney General studied the report and confirmed that the report is binding on the government and its institutions.
“I have already found that the appellant is under the supervision of the Ministry of Works and Transport and is thus bound by the opinion of the Attorney General. In this case, the opinion of the Attorney General was that the report of the Chief Mechanical Engineer was binding on the government and the appellant, as an agency of government, cannot claim not to be bound by the report,” the ruling reads in part.
According to court records, Parambot sued the Attorney General and UNRA jointly for negligence and encroachment on its land. The record states that while constructing the Gayaza-Zrrobwe Road, on which Parambot’s twin factories are situated, there was destruction to their premises and machinery. By consent of both parties, the Chief Mechanical Engineer of the Ministry of Works was engaged to reconcile the two conflicting valuation reports on the extent of damage occasioned to the machinery.
When the matter was taken to court, it was held that the UNRA, together with the Attorney General, were jointly and severally liable for the damages. A judgment on admission was entered against UNRA and the Attorney General and the issue pertaining to damage of the machinery was accordingly disposed of.
The court ordered that Parambot would proceed to prove their claim in respect of the outstanding issues of compensation for damage to the wall fence, housing structures, and land. But UNRA raised eight reasons to challenge the decision of the court arguing among others that it wasn’t bound by a decision in which it was never a party.
UNRA also contended that the trial Judge erred in law and fact in awarding the Parambot 31.484 billion Shillings to be paid by them and the Attorney General. Of all the eight grounds of appeal, UNRA won none. “The damage caused to the respondent’s property was done in constructing the Gayaza-Zirobwe Road, on which the respondent’s twin factories are situated thus causing injury to the respondent’s premises and machinery. The appellant is the implementing agency of the government as far as the national road network is concerned. The fact that the appellant contracted a third party to carry out the construction and re-construction of the Gayaza-Zrrobwe road does not exempt the appellant from liability under Section 6 of the Uganda National Roads Authority Act and the appellant is thus liable for claims that arise from the performance of its functions thereunder,” court ruled.
Considering the evidence on file that the Attorney General had conceded to the report that recommended the compensation of 31 billion Shillings, the court held that it was binding on UNRA. “Under Order 13 rule 6, the court is empowered to enter judgment on admission at any stage of a suit, where an admission of facts has been made either on the pleadings or otherwise. The purpose of this provision is to enable a party to obtain a speedy judgment to the extent of the relief which according to the admission of the other party, he is entitled to. I find that the learned trial judge rightly entered a judgment on admission in the sum of shs 31,484,904,247 l= as contained in the Chief Mechanical Engineer’s report,” the ruling reads.
