news 18 May 2026 Daily Monitor (Uganda)
Architectural Firm Fined Shs2.7 Billion for Kabira Country Club Project Breaches
The Commercial Court has ordered an architectural firm, FBW (U) Limited, to refund approximately Shs2.7 billion to Meera Investment Ltd for fundamental breaches of a consultancy agreement concerning the expansion of Kabira Country Club. Source: https://www.monitor.co.ug/uganda/news/national/architectural-firm-fined-shs2-7b-over-kabira-country-club-expansion-project-5464448
A significant ruling has seen an architectural firm, FBW (U) Limited, ordered by the Commercial Court to pay Shs2.7 billion (USD740,500) to Meera Investment Ltd. The court found the firm, along with architects Nigel J. Tilling and Paul Moores, in fundamental breach of their contractual and professional obligations.
The dispute centered on a 2012 consultancy agreement, revived in 2018, for the expansion of Kabira Country Club in Bukoto, Kampala. FBW (U) Limited was tasked with preparing a complete construction drawings package.
Acting Judge Susan Odongo detailed the breaches, including failure to meet a December 2018 deadline for construction drawings, not providing deliverables in a usable, editable format, unilaterally changing payment milestones, and withholding essential data. The court held that the firm’s actions fundamentally breached the agreement, and the architects breached their professional duty of care.
The awarded sum includes a refund of USD132,750 already received by the firm, USD108,500 in special damages for hiring replacement consultants, and USD500,000 in general damages for lost business opportunities due to project delays.
Meera Investment had argued that the firm delivered only KCCA-approved PDF drawings instead of editable CAD files, making them unsuitable for contractors and surveyors. Attempts to convert the files were impracticable, leading to an estimated eight-month delay and the need to hire new consultants.
Despite defense arguments about corporate entity dissolution and personal liability, the court rejected them, noting that the defendants interchangeably used corporate names and that the entity remained on the Ugandan register. Invoices and payments further supported the plaintiff’s claim that the entities were treated as one.
This case was reported by the Daily Monitor.