High Court Orders FBW to Deposit UGX. 495m Security in Kabira Country Club Dispute

KAMPALA – The High Court in Kampala has ordered architectural consultancy FBW (U) Limited and its directors to deposit security of USD132,750 (approximately UGX 494.5 million) within 45 days as a condition for staying execution of a USD741,250 (about UGX 2.76 billion) judgment, plus interest and costs, awarded to Dr. Sudhir Ruparelia’s Meera Investments Limited.

In a ruling delivered electronically on 21 August 2026, Hon. Lady Justice Susan Odongo of the Commercial Division granted FBW (U) Limited, Paul Moores and Nigel J. Tilling a conditional stay of execution pending their intended appeal against her 3 April 2026 judgment. The dispute arises from consultancy services provided for the Kabira Country Club Service Apartments, a major 15-floor, 350-room development.

Under the orders, FBW must either deposit the USD132,750 in court or furnish an unconditional, irrevocable and on-demand bank guarantee for the same amount from a reputable commercial bank licensed to operate in Uganda. If the firm fails to comply within the prescribed 45-day period, the stay automatically lapses and Meera Investments is free to proceed with execution of the entire judgment without seeking any further order from the court.

Justice Odongo made clear that the security requirement is not optional. She emphasised that the sum corresponds exactly to the refund earlier ordered in favour of Meera Investments for the fourth and fifth payment milestones under the original consultancy agreement—money paid for construction-phase services that the court found were never rendered.

The judge strongly reaffirmed her April findings, describing them as “legally and technically unassailable.” She held that FBW breached its contractual obligations by failing to provide usable and editable construction drawings, instead supplying static PDF documents inadequate for the project. She further characterised the withholding of editable CAD data as “a high-handed tool of financial leverage that frustrated the contract.”

Although she assessed FBW’s intended appeal as having “zero likelihood of success on its merits,” Justice Odongo found that the firm had crossed the minimum threshold for a stay by lodging a Notice of Appeal and pursuing validation of its late filing in the Court of Appeal.

FBW argued that immediate enforcement of the full USD741,250 decree risked wiping out its specialised architectural practice through insolvency and liquidation. The court accepted this risk, noting that Meera Investments, as a highly capitalised real estate company, would not face bankruptcy from a temporary delay in recovery. The balance of convenience therefore favoured granting the conditional stay.

The original judgment remains fully intact. FBW and its directors remain exposed to the principal sum comprising the USD132,750 refund, USD108,500 in special damages and USD500,000 in general damages, together with interest and costs. The stay merely postpones enforcement, contingent on the firm depositing or guaranteeing the specified security within the strict 45-day window.

For FBW, the ruling provides temporary protection but places the onus squarely on the firm to secure nearly half a billion shillings if it wishes to pursue its appeal without facing immediate execution.