PICTURE EXCLUSIVE! Hotel, House Designs That Landed Tycoon Bitature In Shs1bn Court Loss with South Africa Firm Finicon Group Revealed
KAMPALA – Red Pepper has obtained exclusive images of the stunning hotel and residential designs at the centre of a bitter legal battle that has left businessman Patrick Bitature facing a court bill of nearly Shs1 billion, plus interest, VAT and legal costs.
The designs, prepared in 2012 by Finicon Group (U) Ltd, the parent company of Angiletti Design Studio Ltd, were produced for two ambitious property projects in the upmarket Kololo suburb of Kampala.
The projects included a proposed luxury Summit View Boutique Hotel on Summit View Road, Kololo Hill, and the remodelling of Bitature’s residence on Malcolm-X Road.
The hotel was projected to cost between US$5 million and US$6 million, equivalent at the time to billions of shillings.
But the developments never took off.
More than a decade later, the abandoned projects have culminated in a major commercial judgment against Bitature, with the High Court Commercial Division ordering him to pay Finicon US$256,136.17 (about Shs954 million), exclusive of VAT, together with 9% annual interest from May 20, 2014 until payment in full and the costs of the suit.
Justice Stephen Mubiru delivered the judgment electronically on August 18, 2026.
THE DESIGNS
The first image obtained by Red Pepper shows the proposed residential development on Malcolm-X Drive, Kololo, designed by Finicon in 2012.
The futuristic concept features sweeping white curves, large glass sections and an expansive landscaped compound. Palm trees, manicured lawns and sculpted greenery surround the building, while the white architectural forms dominate the design.
The second image shows the proposed Summit View Boutique Hotel, featuring enormous oval-shaped blue-glass façades enclosed by sweeping white frames.
The futuristic structure incorporates elevated sections, broad walkways and extensive landscaping, with palm trees and lawns complementing the blue-and-white colour scheme.
The third image takes readers inside the proposed hotel, revealing an equally futuristic interior.
The concept combines smooth white surfaces with warm brown wood finishes, curved walls and organically shaped architectural features. Large windows flood the room with natural light, while modern furniture, a chandelier and integrated lighting create a luxury-hotel feel.
THE SH954M BATTLE
According to the judgment, Bitature entered into an agreement with Finicon on July 6, 2012, for consultancy services for the proposed hotel.
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.
The developments subsequently stalled, sparking a dispute over whether Finicon was entitled to payment for work it had already carried out.
Finicon told court that it had undertaken substantial consultancy work, including preparing architectural concepts and drawings, obtaining regulatory approvals, preparing bills of quantities and conducting tendering processes.
The company initially sought US$267,598.20, approximately Shs996.5 million, excluding VAT, claiming that about 76% of its contracted work had been completed.
Bitature disputed the claim.
His defence was that the projects had remained largely at the inception stage and that the construction costs necessary to calculate Finicon’s fees had not been properly established.
He also argued that money already paid to the company amounted to full and final settlement.
COURT SAYS WORK HAD GONE FAR
But Justice Mubiru found that documentary evidence presented during the case contradicted key parts of Bitature’s account.
The evidence included architectural drawings, delivery acknowledgements, KCCA documentation, NEMA approval for the hotel, bills of quantities and tendering records.
The court found that the hotel assignment had progressed to Stage G — Bills of Quantities, while the residential project had reached Stage H — Tender Action.
Bitature had also acknowledged receiving some of the project documents, while his assistants received others.
The judge further found that there was no formal termination notice issued to Finicon.
Instead, Bitature’s conduct, including signing a KCCA application and accepting drawings without promptly rejecting them in writing, amounted to tacit acceptance of work performed at various stages.
The court held that the fact that the projects were eventually abandoned because of third-party concerns or changes in the client’s plans did not extinguish Finicon’s right to payment for professional services already rendered.
SHS85.7M PAYMENT FAILS TO END DISPUTE
Bitature also relied on approximately US$23,000 (about Shs85.7 million) he had already paid to Finicon.
His position was that the payment represented an agreed valuation of the company’s work after the projects were terminated and constituted full and final settlement.
The judge disagreed.
Justice Mubiru found no clear evidence that Finicon had agreed to accept the payment as a final settlement extinguishing the outstanding debt.
The money was therefore treated as a part-payment, leaving a substantial balance.
HOW THE COURT ARRIVED AT SH954M
For the hotel project, court calculated Finicon’s earned professional fee at US$216,000, about Shs804.4 million, based on the stages completed and the US$6 million project budget.
For the residential project, the court calculated the earned fee at US$63,136.17, about Shs235.1 million, based on an estimated construction cost of US$1.661 million.
That brought the total earned professional fees to US$279,136.17.
After deducting the payment proved to have been made by Bitature, the outstanding balance stood at US$256,136.17, approximately Shs954 million, exclusive of VAT.
LICENSING ARGUMENT ALSO REJECTED
Bitature’s lawyers also challenged Finicon’s professional standing, questioning whether the company was properly registered as an architectural firm and raising issues concerning the professional qualifications of some of its directors.
The court, however, distinguished between the corporate entity entering into the consultancy agreement and the professionals actually carrying out regulated architectural work.
Justice Mubiru found that architectural work had been undertaken by registered architect Rogers Mukalazi, and rejected the argument that the agreements were illegal because of a lack of professional qualifications.
INTEREST BILL KEEPS RUNNING
The court further ordered Bitature to pay 9% annual interest from May 20, 2014 until the debt is fully cleared.
That means the financial liability could be substantially higher than the Shs954 million principal, given that the interest has been running for more than 12 years.
The judge said Finicon had been deprived of the use of its money and was entitled to compensation for the period it had been kept out of the funds.
However, Finicon did not get everything it sought.
The court rejected claims for additional general and punitive damages, holding that the interest award adequately compensated the company for the delayed payment.
BITATURE’S FINAL BILL
The final orders require Bitature to pay:
- US$256,136.17 (about Shs954 million), exclusive of VAT;
- 9% annual interest from May 20, 2014 until payment in full; and
- Costs of the suit.
Finicon was represented by M/s Blair & Co. Advocates, while Bitature was represented by M/s ENSafrica Advocates.
The judgment brings to a close a dispute that began with grand plans for a futuristic hotel and luxury residential development in Kololo in 2012.
The buildings never rose.
But the designs have now emerged as key evidence in a legal battle that has left Bitature facing a court-ordered bill running into hundreds of millions of shillings — and potentially much more once interest, VAT and legal costs are factored in.
FULL RULING: Finicon (U) Limited v Patrick Bitature 2026 UGCommC 398 (18 August 2026)
GOT A HOT STORY? LET US KNOW!
Got breaking news, explosive secrets, or hard evidence?
Email us: redpeppertips@gmail.com
We accept tips, documents, videos, photos, and recordings—the more evidence you have, the better.
CONFIDENTIALITY IS OUR TOP PRIORITY. SOURCES ARE ALWAYS PROTECTED!
About Post Author
