A recent decision of Uganda’s High Court Commercial Division provides an important lesson for everyone involved in construction projects: a project does not have to reach completion for professional work already performed under a valid contract to have value or create a payment obligation.
In Finicon (U) Limited v Patrick Bitature (Civil Suit No. 1003 of 2018), decided on 18 August 2026, the High Court ordered Patrick Bitature to pay Finicon (U) Limited US$256,136.17, exclusive of VAT, together with interest at 9 percent per annum from 20 May 2014 until payment in full, as well as the costs of the suit. The judgment was delivered by Justice Stephen Mubiru of the Commercial Division of the High Court.
The dispute arose from consultancy agreements entered into in 2012 for proposed developments in Kampala. One agreement, dated 6 July 2012, concerned a proposed high-end boutique hotel on Summit View Road on Kololo Hill. The proposed investment was estimated at between US$5 million and US$6 million. A second agreement, dated 24 August 2012, concerned the remodelling of a residential property on Malcolm-X Road in Kololo.
Finicon was engaged to provide professional architectural and engineering consultancy services. The work included activities such as surveying, appraisal and feasibility work, preparation of architectural drawings, project documentation, tendering, preparation of tender reports and obtaining relevant regulatory approvals.
The projects, however, did not proceed to completion. This subsequently became the centre of the dispute. Finicon maintained that it had performed substantial portions of the contracted professional services and was therefore entitled to payment. The company claimed that approximately 76 percent of its contracted work had been completed.
Bitature disputed the amount claimed and argued, among other things, that the projects had not progressed sufficiently for the construction costs and consultancy fees to be properly established. He also maintained that an amount already paid had been agreed as full and final settlement.
The dispute eventually reached the Commercial Division of Uganda’s High Court, where the court considered the contractual obligations between the parties and the work that had been undertaken under the consultancy agreements.
For professionals involved in construction planning, project management and contract administration, one of the most important lessons from the case is that the failure of a project to reach completion does not necessarily erase the value of professional services already provided.
Construction projects involve considerably more work than the physical activities visible on a construction site. Before a contractor begins excavation, foundation works or structural construction, consultants and project teams may already have spent months undertaking feasibility assessments, surveys, concept development, architectural and engineering designs, cost planning, preparation of bills of quantities, tender documentation, regulatory approvals and procurement activities.
That professional work requires time, expertise and resources. If the project is subsequently suspended or abandoned, the work that has already been performed does not simply disappear.
This is particularly important from a project-planning perspective. Construction planning begins long before physical construction starts. A project may spend significant amounts of money during its planning, design and procurement stages before a single major construction activity takes place on site.
For project owners, this means that cancelling or abandoning a development does not necessarily mean that all financial obligations associated with the project also disappear. Where consultants have been properly engaged and have performed services in accordance with their contracts, the owner may still have obligations arising from that work.
The case also highlights the importance of clearly defining the scope of professional services at the beginning of a project. Construction and consultancy agreements should clearly establish what the consultant is expected to deliver, when each stage is considered complete and how the professional fee will be calculated.
This becomes particularly important where professional fees are linked to the estimated or actual construction cost. The contract should provide a clear mechanism for determining fees at different stages and should address what happens if the project changes, is suspended, is redesigned or is abandoned before construction is completed.
A well-structured consultancy agreement should therefore anticipate more than the ideal scenario in which everything goes according to the original plan. It should also address what happens when circumstances change.
Projects are rarely static. Designs change, budgets change, financing arrangements change, regulatory requirements change and clients sometimes change their investment decisions. A project that begins as a major development can eventually be reduced in scope, postponed or abandoned altogether.
Good contract management is about anticipating these possibilities before they become disputes.
Payment mechanisms are another important aspect of the case. Where professional fees are calculated as a percentage of construction cost, the agreement needs to provide sufficient clarity about how the fee is determined and how payment relates to the different stages of professional work.
Linking payments to clearly identifiable milestones can help reduce disagreements. A consultancy agreement can, for example, establish payment stages around concept design, detailed design, preparation of tender documents, tender evaluation, regulatory approvals and other identifiable deliverables.
The principle is simple: the parties should be able to look at the contract and determine what work was expected, what work was completed and what payment became due.
This is where planning and contract management come together.
A project programme tells the team what is expected to happen and when it is expected to happen. Contract management establishes the contractual consequences when those expectations change.
If a project is delayed, the planner may assess the effect of the delay on the programme and critical path. The contract-management team then needs to establish whether the delay gives rise to any contractual entitlement.
If a variation changes the scope of work, the planning team may assess the effect on time and resources while the contract-management team deals with valuation, instructions and contractual entitlement.
If a project is suspended, the project team needs to understand both the practical consequences for the programme and the contractual consequences for the parties.
This is why project planning and contract management should not be treated as completely separate functions. They are closely connected throughout the life of a construction project.
Another major lesson for construction professionals is the importance of documentation.
When a project is running smoothly, documentation can sometimes appear to be a secondary administrative responsibility. When a dispute arises, however, project records can become some of the most important evidence available.
A consultant may say that substantial work was completed. A client may believe that only preliminary work was undertaken. A contractor may maintain that an instruction was issued. The employer may dispute having given that instruction.
Without proper records, such disagreements can become difficult to resolve.
Meeting minutes, drawings, submissions, tender documents, progress reports, instructions, payment applications, approvals, programmes, correspondence and other project records provide a chronological history of what actually happened.
For contract managers, documentation is therefore not merely paperwork. It is part of the risk-management process.
The Finicon dispute also provides an important distinction between project failure and contract failure.
A project can fail to achieve its ultimate commercial objective without every contract associated with that project becoming unenforceable. A development may become financially unviable. Financing may collapse. A client may change its investment strategy. A proposed building may never be constructed.
None of these circumstances necessarily means that professional services already performed under a contract were worthless.
The distinction is between the ultimate project objective and the specific services that were contracted.
A client may have hired a consultant to design and prepare documentation for a building. The building may ultimately never be constructed, but that does not automatically mean the design work was never performed or that the contractual obligations associated with that work disappeared.
For project owners, the lesson is to approach professional appointments with the same level of seriousness given to construction contracts. The scope of services, professional fees, payment milestones, additional services, suspension, termination and treatment of completed work should all be addressed clearly.
If a project is terminated or the parties agree to settle outstanding amounts, the terms of that settlement should also be clearly documented. Where an amount is intended to constitute full and final settlement, the agreement should expressly establish that intention.
For consultants, the case reinforces the importance of managing not only technical responsibilities but also the commercial side of professional practice.
A consultant can produce excellent technical work and still face significant difficulties if the scope of work, deliverables, payment arrangements and project records are poorly managed.
Professional services should therefore be tracked throughout the project. The consultant should be able to demonstrate what was instructed, what was delivered, when it was delivered and what payment was associated with each stage.
The same principle applies to contractors. Construction contracts routinely involve delayed instructions, variations, suspended works, incomplete designs, payment disputes and changes in scope.
When these situations arise, contractors need to understand the contractual procedures governing notices, extensions of time, variations, payment, suspension, termination and claims.
A legitimate claim can become difficult to enforce if the contractor fails to follow the notice and documentation requirements contained in the contract.
The broader message from the Finicon decision is therefore relevant across Uganda’s construction industry. Construction projects can be delayed, redesigned, suspended or abandoned, but the contractual relationships created along the way still matter.
Proper planning does not eliminate every construction dispute. Good contract management does not guarantee that a project will never encounter difficulties. What they do provide is structure.
They help the parties establish what was agreed, what was expected to happen, what actually happened, what changed and what financial or contractual consequences followed.
For Ernst Planning Engineers, this is an important aspect of the work we believe should receive greater attention in Uganda’s construction industry.
Successful construction is not simply about getting work completed on site. It begins with proper planning and continues through disciplined programme management, documentation, monitoring, commercial management and contract administration.
The Finicon case is a useful reminder that professional work performed during the planning and development stages has real commercial value. It also demonstrates why project owners, consultants and contractors should establish clear contractual arrangements before work begins and maintain proper records throughout the project.
The practical lesson is straightforward: plan the work carefully, define the contractual responsibilities clearly, monitor progress, document decisions and manage changes as they occur.
A construction project may stop, but the professional work already performed does not simply disappear.
This article is intended for general information and construction-management commentary. It is not legal advice. Parties involved in contractual disputes should obtain advice from a qualified legal professional.
Case: Finicon (U) Limited v Patrick Bitature (Civil Suit No. 1003 of 2018) [2026] UGCommC 398, decided on 18 August 2026.