BITATURE HIT WITH SH256M COURT BILL! High Court Also Orders Bizman to Pay Finicon Sh954m Plus Interest Dating Back 2014

Businessman Patrick Bitature has been slapped with a hefty court bill after the High Court’s Commercial Division ordered him to pay architectural and engineering consultancy firm Finicon US$256,136.17 (about Shs954 million), exclusive of VAT, arising from two Kampala property projects that never took off.

Justice Stephen Mubiru has further ordered Bitature to pay 9% annual interest on the outstanding amount from May 20, 2014 until the debt is cleared, together with the costs of the suit.

The judgment, delivered electronically on August 18, 2026, brings to an end a dispute that has dragged on for more than a decade and centred on consultancy work carried out for two proposed developments in the upmarket Kololo suburb of Kampala.

The case dates back to agreements signed in 2012, when Bitature engaged Finicon to provide professional consultancy services for a planned high-end boutique hotel on Summit View Road, Kololo Hill, and the remodelling of his residential property on Malcolm-X Road, also in Kololo.

The proposed boutique hotel was estimated to cost between US$5 million (about Shs18.6 billion) and US$6 million (about Shs22.3 billion).

Under the July 6, 2012 hotel agreement, Finicon’s professional fee was pegged at 5% of the construction cost, based on a locked project budget of US$6 million.

A second agreement, signed on August 24, 2012, provided for a similar 5% professional fee for the residential remodelling project.

But the ambitious developments stalled before construction could begin, triggering a bitter disagreement over whether Finicon should be paid for work already completed.

Finicon maintained that it had done substantial work before the projects collapsed, including preparing concepts and architectural drawings, obtaining regulatory approvals, preparing bills of quantities and undertaking tendering processes.

The company initially claimed an outstanding US$267,598.20 (about Shs996.5 million), excluding VAT, arguing that approximately 76% of its contracted consultancy work had been completed.

Bitature disputed the claim.

His defence argued that the construction costs required to calculate the professional fees had never been properly ascertained, making the contracts vague and unenforceable.

He further maintained that money already paid to Finicon amounted to full and final settlement, particularly because neither project proceeded to actual development.

His lawyers also raised other challenges, including questions surrounding professional architectural registration, the identity of the contracting party and allegations of fraud.

But Justice Mubiru was not persuaded by key aspects of Bitature’s defence.

At the centre of the battle was the question of just how far Finicon had progressed with the two projects before they were abandoned.

Bitature told court that both projects had effectively remained at the inception stage.

He said the residential development stalled because the proposed design did not correspond with what he wanted, while the hotel project was terminated after concerns were raised by the Ministry of Defence regarding its location.

However, the judge found that Bitature’s account did not tally with the documentary evidence presented before court.

The evidence included architectural drawings, delivery acknowledgements, documentation relating to KCCA, NEMA approval for the hotel, bills of quantities and records of tendering activity.

Bitature also acknowledged receiving some of the project documents, while confirming that his assistants had received others.

According to Justice Mubiru, those acknowledgements undermined Bitature’s claim that he was unaware of work progressing beyond the inception stage.

The court ultimately found that Finicon had progressed the hotel assignment up to Stage G — Bills of Quantities — while the residential project had reached Stage H — Tender Action.

And there was another problem for Bitature.

Although he said the consultancy contracts had been terminated, the court found that no formal termination notice had been issued.

Instead, his conduct, including signing a KCCA application and accepting drawings without promptly rejecting them in writing, amounted to tacit approval of work performed at various stages.

Justice Mubiru held that the fact that the developments were eventually stopped because of third-party concerns or changes in the client’s plans did not wipe out Finicon’s right to payment for professional services already rendered.

LICENSING DEFENCE ALSO CRASHES

Bitature’s defence also attempted to attack Finicon’s professional standing, arguing that the company was not registered as an architectural firm and questioning the professional status of some of its directors at the time the work was done.

But court drew a distinction between the corporate entity entering into the consultancy agreement and the individuals actually carrying out regulated architectural work.

Justice Mubiru held that the Architects Registration Act does not prevent a corporation from entering into a contract to provide architectural services, provided the actual professional work is performed and supervised by a registered and licensed architect exercising independent professional judgment.

The court accepted evidence that registered architect Rogers Mukalazi was responsible for the architectural work undertaken on the two projects.

The judge therefore rejected the argument that the agreements were illegal because of lack of professional qualifications, finding that Finicon had carried out the work through lawful and licensed means.

SH85.7M PAYMENT FAILS TO SAVE BITATURE

Bitature also relied heavily on approximately US$23,000 (about Shs85.7 million) that he had already paid.

His position was that the money represented an agreed valuation of Finicon’s work after the projects were terminated and amounted to full and final settlement.

Again, court disagreed.

Justice Mubiru found no clear evidence that Finicon had agreed to accept the payment as a final settlement that would extinguish the entire outstanding debt.

The payment was therefore treated as a part-payment, leaving a substantial balance outstanding.

COURT CALCULATES THE BILL

For the hotel project, court calculated that Finicon had earned US$216,000 (about Shs804.4 million) based on the stages completed and the locked project cost of US$6 million.

For the residential project, court calculated Finicon’s earned professional fee at US$63,136.17 (about Shs235.1 million), based on an estimated construction cost of US$1.661 million, equivalent to approximately Shs6.19 billion.

Together, the two projects generated earned professional fees of US$279,136.17 (about Shs1.04 billion).

After deducting the payment proved to have been made by Bitature, the court arrived at an outstanding balance of US$256,136.17 (about Shs954 million), exclusive of VAT.

And because Finicon had been deprived of its money for years, Justice Mubiru imposed 9% annual interest from May 20, 2014 until full payment.

The interest order means the final financial burden will be considerably higher than the Shs954 million principal if the debt remains unpaid.

The judge reasoned that Finicon had effectively lost the use of its money and was therefore entitled to compensation for the period it had been kept out of its funds.

However, Finicon did not win everything it asked for.

Court rejected its claims for additional general and punitive damages, holding that the interest award adequately compensated the company for the delayed payment.

Justice Mubiru also noted that punitive damages are generally not available in an ordinary breach-of-contract dispute.

BITATURE NOW FACES SH954M PLUS VAT, INTEREST & LEGAL COSTS

The final orders are clear.

Bitature must pay Finicon:

US$256,136.17, exclusive of VAT, as the outstanding contractual sum;

9% annual interest from May 20, 2014 until payment in full; and

the costs of the suit.

The judgment was delivered electronically on August 18, 2026, by Justice Stephen Mubiru.

Finicon was represented by M/s Blair & Co. Advocates, while Bitature was represented by M/s ENSafrica Advocates.

The ruling effectively turns two property developments that never reached the construction stage into a major commercial liability for Bitature more than a decade after the consultancy agreements were signed.

What began in 2012 as plans for a luxury hotel and a high-end residential remodelling project has now ended with a court order requiring Bitature to dig deep — US$256,136.17 in principal, VAT where applicable, 9% interest running all the way from May 2014, plus legal costs.

And with the interest clock having been running for more than 12 years, the final bill is far from the original Shs954 million headline figure.

FULL RULING HERE:

Finicon (U) Limited v Patrick Bitature 2026 UGCommC 398 (18 August 2026)