KAMPALA — A cross-border commercial dispute has followed Roko Construction Rwanda Ltd into Uganda, where the High Court has registered a Rwandan judgment requiring the company to pay sums that, at the exchange rates presented to the court, amount to about Shs14.87 billion.
In a ruling delivered on July 12, 2026, Justice Susan Odongo ordered that a judgment of Rwanda’s High Commercial Court, issued in September 2024, be registered as a judgment of Uganda’s High Court, clearing the way for execution against assets and proceeds available to the construction company in Uganda.
The case was brought by MUA Insurance Rwanda Ltd, which told the Ugandan court that it had been unable to recover the judgment in Rwanda and had turned to Uganda because Roko was undertaking construction projects there.
The dispute offers an unusually clear illustration of how a commercial judgment can cross a national border — and how courts can use reciprocal enforcement rules to prevent a debt from disappearing simply because a debtor’s business interests have moved.
At the heart of the case was a final judgment of Rwanda’s High Commercial Court in Kigali in Case No. RCOMA 00077/2024/HCC, dated September 13, 2024.
The Rwandan court ordered payment of US$2,932,432 arising from construction works by Village Health Works, US$350,000 for insurance to Betts & Townsend Project Management Ltd., and FRW1.3 billion connected to insurance of construction activities by I&M Bank.
It also awarded smaller sums for lawyers’ remuneration and court fees: FRW500,000 in counsel remuneration, FRW100,000 in procedural fees, FRW1.5 million in counsel remuneration and FRW20,000 in court fees.
The total, calculated in Uganda shillings for purposes of enforcement, was presented as Shs14,870,196,406.26.
MUA’s Head of Legal Services, Sylver Gatete, told the Ugandan court in an affidavit that the judgment had not been satisfied.
“That I know that at the date of this application, the judgement has not been satisfied and all the decreed sums in (4) above remain due and outstanding as against the Respondent.”
He further stated: “That I know that at the date of this application, the judgement can be enforced by execution in the original court, the High Commercial Court at its seat in Kigali in Rwanda”.
According to Gatete, Roko’s directors had fled Rwanda after the original judgment and MUA had been unable to identify assets there that could readily be attached.
But the company, he said, was not simply gone.
It was operating in Uganda.
Gatete told the court that Roko was undertaking construction projects in Uganda and that proceeds from those projects could be attached to satisfy the judgment. MUA supported the claim with joint venture agreements involving Roko and companies operating in Uganda.
Among the projects identified in the court record were the New Chamber of Parliament of Uganda and offices for the Uganda Electricity Transmission Company Limited (UETCL).
That evidence transformed what might otherwise have been a technical application for recognition of a foreign judgment into a practical enforcement dispute.
Justice Odongo described the registration as more than a procedural formality.
The court said the evidence showed that registration in Uganda was “not merely a legal formality but a practical necessity for the realization of justice.”
A debt that crossed borders
The central legal question was straightforward: Could the Rwandan judgment be registered and enforced in Uganda?
Justice Odongo said yes.
Uganda’s Foreign Judgments (Reciprocal Enforcement) Act, Cap 10, provides the framework for recognizing qualifying judgments from foreign jurisdictions. The judge noted that the legislation rests on the idea that once a competent court has adjudicated a claim, the resulting judgment creates a legal obligation.
Quoting an earlier Kenyan decision, the judge wrote:
“The judgement of a foreign court is enforced on the principle that where a foreign court of competent jurisdiction has adjudicated upon a claim, a legal obligation arises to satisfy that claim in a country where the Judgment needed to be enforced.”
The court emphasized that such recognition is not merely an act of courtesy between nations.
It is grounded, the judgment said, in “basic principle of justice, equity and good conscience.”
The same reasoning was linked to the doctrine of comity — the expectation that courts in different countries should respect each other’s legitimate judicial decisions.
Justice Odongo described comity as:
“a shorthand of good neighborliness, common courtesy and mutual respect between those who labor in adjoining judicial vineyards.”
For the court, that principle mattered particularly in a commercial world where companies can operate across several jurisdictions.
The judgment warned against a situation in which a debtor could escape an adjudicated obligation merely by moving business interests or assets across a border.
“The legal obligation created by the Rwandan court is a debt that follows the debtor,” Justice Odongo wrote.
Roko had appealed — and lost
The court also considered whether the Rwandan decision was truly final.
It was.
The record showed that Roko had participated in the original proceedings and subsequently appealed. That appeal was dismissed.
Justice Odongo therefore concluded:
“Given that the appellate process in Rwanda has been exhausted, I am satisfied that the judgment is final and conclusive and no longer subject to modification by the original court.”
The judge also found that the debt fell within the type of monetary obligation contemplated by Uganda’s enforcement law.
“These are clearly commercial debts,” the ruling said, adding that they “do not constitute taxes or other charges of a like nature or a fine or other penalty.”
The application itself had been filed on May 4, 2026, less than two years after the Rwandan judgment. That placed it comfortably within the six-year period allowed by the law.
The court found the application timely.
It also found no evidence of fraud or a violation of Ugandan public policy.
Roko’s participation in the Rwandan appeal was particularly significant because, in the judge’s view, it demonstrated that the company had been given an opportunity to contest the case.
“This participation in the appellate process is the ultimate proof that the Respondent had notice and was active in the litigation.”
What the Ugandan ruling means
The court ultimately found that MUA had satisfied the statutory requirements for registration.
“The integrity of the judicial process and the principles of comity and obligation demand that the Rwandan judgment be recognized and enforced by this Court,” Justice Odongo wrote.
She ordered that the Rwandan judgment be registered as a judgment of the High Court of Uganda.
The registered amounts include the US$2,932,432 construction-related award, US$350,000 insurance award, FRW1.3 billion insurance-related award and the associated legal and court costs. The applicant was also awarded the costs of the Ugandan application.
The ruling does not itself state that the identified Ugandan projects or their owners must immediately pay MUA. Rather, it gives MUA the legal basis in Uganda to pursue execution against qualifying assets or proceeds belonging to the judgment debtor.
And in a final observation that captures the broader significance of the case, the court said allowing a company to avoid an adjudicated liability simply by crossing a border would undermine the effectiveness of commercial justice.
“It would be a travesty of justice to allow a company to evade its adjudicated liabilities by merely crossing a border while continuing to profit from large-scale contracts in the neighboring state.”
The judgment was signed and delivered electronically on July 12, 2026.
President Museveni has over the years defended ROKO even as the construction company faced backlash over reports that billions were being injected — as Andrew Mwenda accused some of conning the elderly president of billions of taxpayers’ money. (See Details Here and There).
