The Commercial Division of Uganda’s High Court has ordered Roko Construction Company to pay Assa Abloy Uganda Limited $1.39 million (about Shs5.7 billion) for doors and ironmongery supplied and installed at Mulago National Referral Hospital.
In a ruling delivered on October 16, Justice Stephen Mubiru found that Roko had failed to pay the outstanding contractual balance after receiving and installing the supplies during the hospital’s renovation works.
“The plaintiff is therefore entitled to the recovery of the outstanding balance of US $1,391,667.58,” Mubiru ruled.
The court entered judgment against Roko for $1,391,667.58 and dismissed the claim against the Attorney General, who had also been named as a defendant, with costs.
The dispute arose from orders placed between 2017 and 2019 for steel door sets, wooden door leaves, frames and ironmongery for the hospital project. Court records show that the combined value of the supplies was $2,581,667.58.
Roko placed an initial order on June 30, 2017, for 2,398 steel door sets valued at about $1.57 million. The order was later revised to 2,716 doors and accessories, valued at approximately $2.22 million.
On January 18, 2019, Roko placed a separate order for assorted ironmongery worth $365,342.97, bringing the total value of the two orders to $2.58 million. The goods were manufactured and shipped from Assa Abloy’s factory in Dubai, United Arab Emirates, and delivered and installed at Mulago between August 2017 and October 2018.
Under the agreement, payment was due within 45 days of delivery. Assa Abloy told the court that Roko paid about $1.19 million, leaving the balance now in dispute.
Court rejects claims over defective doors
Roko challenged the supplier’s claim, arguing that some doors and accessories were defective or did not meet the agreed specifications. The construction firm also disputed the quantities supplied and relied on claims that some of the doors had been returned or repossessed.
Justice Mubiru found that Roko had not demonstrated that it formally rejected the allegedly defective goods within a reasonable period. The court noted that the company had retained and installed the doors without communicating a timely rejection to the supplier.
“In conclusion, had the 1st defendant genuinely wished to reject any doors, it was required to intimate this rejection to the plaintiff within a reasonable time. It did not do so. Therefore, the 1st defendant’s defence of defective or non-compliant goods is not available,” the judge ruled.
The court also rejected the claim that 1,358 doors had been physically removed from the hospital.
“The doors were installed at Mulago Hospital. D.W.1 testified to the installation process across Blocks ‘A’ through ‘K’. The August 2020 joint audit confirmed 2,716 doors installed,” Mubiru said.
The judge noted that neither party had presented evidence establishing that the 1,358 doors were physically removed from the premises. The court therefore found no sufficient factual basis for the repossession claim.
The judgment also dismissed the case against the Attorney General. The court found that the government was not a party to the supply agreement between Assa Abloy and Roko and could not be held responsible for the contractor’s debt simply because the goods had been installed at a public hospital.
In addition to the outstanding principal, Roko was ordered to pay interest at an annual rate of nine per cent from August 20, 2020, until the debt is settled in full, together with the costs of the suit.
The ruling was delivered on October 16, 2026, in Assa Abloy (U) Ltd v Roko Construction Limited and Another, Civil Suit No. 0251 of 2021.
