Construction firm Eutaw and its associates have accused Uganda National Roads Authority (UNRA) of illegally terminating their contract worth Shs 165bn, viagra http://coastalperiodontics.com.au/wp-content/plugins/contact-form-7/includes/contact-form-functions.php adding they are not liable to pay any money to the authority.
UNRA recently dragged Apollo Senkeeto, viagra McCoy Timothy, approved Richard Pratt, Nui Hong, Michael Olvey and Eutaw Construction Company to the Commercial Court seeking to recover Shs 24.7b from them.
However, in their defence seen by ChimpReports, the defendants say “UNRA terminated the contract with Eutaw on November 24, 2014 without giving notice or showing cause as per clause 15.2 of the general conditions and was denied a right to fair hearing.”
Eutaw further argues that UNRA purported to have rescinded the contract yet there was no evidence of such action apart from a letter dated November 24, 2014, instructing Eutaw and its personal agents to immediately vacate the site not later than December 2, 2014.
The construction firm was awarded a contract for civil works for upgrading from gravel to paved standard of Mukono-Kyetume-Katosi/Kisoga-Nyenge road after lengthy negotiations with UNRA and recommendations were made thereafter by the contracts committee and approved the said contract at a cost of Shs165bn.
Eutaw represented its self as Eutaw Construction Company Inc.622 Beachland Blvd Suite Vero beach, Florida 32963, denying alleged misrepresentations during the bidding process.
On November 7, 2013, UNRA wrote to Eutaw informing it that on the August 14, 2013, revalidation of the bid was done for execution of the works for the accepted contract of sh165b, requesting for the performance security within 28 days.
Thereafter, on November 15, 2013, a contract was executed between Eutaw and UNRA. However, as a partial performance of the said contract, sh24.7b was paid to Eutaw as part payment to cover its cost of mobilization to undertake the works as indicated in a letter dated December 30, 2013.
The defendants contend that as per clause 3.2 of UNRA’s project brief updates of July 9, 2014, and September 10, 2014, it clearly states that mobilization was on-going hence the purpose of advanced payment was fully met.
According to the defendants, the aggregated general percentage achieved was 11.4 percent and the earth works and gravel pavement layer was at 5.17 percent, making a total of 16.5 percent of the contracted physical works completed, which is in excess of sh24.7b. They say an excess of sh33b worth of work was accomplished besides the sh24b paid for mobilization.
The sued parties said, “The fact that UNRA claims in the valuation dated June 29, 2016, that sh6.2b was valued for the works done, such physical works could not be done or achieved without prior execution of mobilization which was completed as per UNRA records of minutes for pre-bid meeting dated November 6, 2014.”
They further contend that the said money was owed to Eutaw for the actual quantities of works already executed in addition to the advance payment.
The defendants say UNRA failed to conduct a valuation upon termination of the contract contrary to clause 3.5 and 15.3 of the general condition, which requires the engineer to make consult, with each party to endeavor that an agreement is reached.
They also state that there was no suffering and economic loss or damages as alleged was caused to UNRA for them to refund sh18.8b. They want the case to be dismissed with costs.
Meantime, Eutaw has also lodged a counterclaim, seeking orders that UNRA breached a contract dated November 15, 2013 and in excess of sh24.3b as the works done and completed before the contract was terminated.
Eutaw also wants court to issue orders directing the release of their 12 motor vehicles and office items including engineer house hold items, laboratory equipment, furniture and survey equipment that police impounded.
The firm also wants a declaration that UNRA illegally and acrimoniously grabbed and took possession of its vehicles which has caused “tortuous economic interference with Eutaw’s business for which it’s entitled to recompense by way of general damages, punitive or exemplary damages.”
Eutaw further seeks an order of a permanent injunction against UNRA and its agents restraining the authority from any further acts of unlawful assumption of the right to possession of motor vehicles.
The firm had further demanded Shs 12m per day for every day that UNRA remains in possession of the motor vehicles, general damages, punitive or exemplary damages for the loss and inconveniences, acrimonious and reckless conduct.