A Kampala commercial court has authorised a Rwandan insurance company to pursue assets belonging to Roko Construction Rwanda Ltd inside Uganda, clearing the legal path to recover a debt worth approximately Shs14.87 billion. The ruling, issued by High Court Commercial Division Judge Susan Odongo, formally registered a September 2024 judgment from Rwanda’s High Commercial Court as a Ugandan judgment, a procedural step that carries enormous practical weight for the insurer chasing unpaid obligations across an international border.
The Debt That Crossed a Border
The original Rwandan court order, handed down on September 13, 2024, instructed Roko Construction Rwanda to pay MUA Insurance Rwanda Ltd a combined sum of $3.28 million and 1.302 billion Rwandan francs. The claims arose from a mix of construction and insurance-related obligations tied to several distinct projects and clients.
The dollar-denominated portion breaks down into two parts. The larger slice, $2.93 million, is connected to construction works undertaken for Village Health Works. A further $350,000 relates to insurance coverage arranged for Betts and Townsend Project Management Ltd. On the franc side, 1.3 billion Rwandan francs are linked to insurance for construction activities carried out for I&M Bank, with the remainder covering legal fees, procedural charges, and court costs.
By the time MUA Insurance approached Uganda’s courts, not a single shilling of that award had been paid. According to court documents reviewed by Chimpreports, the insurer told the Ugandan bench that Roko Construction Rwanda had no traceable or attachable assets remaining in Rwanda, making domestic enforcement practically impossible.
Directors Alleged to Have Left Rwanda
The affidavit filed by Sylver Gatete, MUA Insurance Rwanda’s head of legal services, went further than a simple claim of missing funds. Gatete alleged that the directors of Roko Construction Rwanda had left Rwanda after the judgment was entered against the company. That allegation, if accurate, shifts this story from a routine commercial dispute into something with a more serious dimension, one involving deliberate evasion of a court-sanctioned financial obligation.
The claim has not been tested in adversarial proceedings, partly because Roko Construction Rwanda did not participate in the Ugandan registration application. Under Uganda’s rules governing the recognition of foreign judgments, the absence of the respondent does not block the process, and the court proceeded accordingly.
Uganda’s Parliament and Power Sector in the Frame
What makes this case particularly striking is where MUA Insurance says it expects to find recoverable value. The insurer presented joint-venture agreements to the Ugandan court showing Roko Construction Rwanda’s involvement alongside local Ugandan companies on two high-profile infrastructure contracts. One is the construction of Uganda’s new Parliament chamber. The other involves office works for Uganda Electricity Transmission Company Ltd.
These are not obscure or marginal projects. The new Parliament chamber is one of the most politically and symbolically significant construction undertakings in the country. The involvement of a company now subject to an international debt enforcement order adds an uncomfortable layer of scrutiny to the procurement and contracting processes that brought it onto those sites.
With the Ugandan court’s registration now in place, MUA Insurance has the legal standing to attach proceeds flowing to Roko Construction Rwanda from these Ugandan projects, should those proceeds exist and be identifiable. The insurer was represented throughout by Patience Akampurira of Kampala Associated Advocates.
What This Means for Cross-Border Enforcement in East Africa
Beyond the specifics of this dispute, the ruling carries broader significance for how businesses, creditors, and insurers think about legal risk in the East African region. Courts in one country registering and enforcing the judgments of a neighbouring country’s courts is not new, but cases of this scale, involving this kind of institutional creditor and this level of alleged non-compliance, attract attention.
For companies operating across multiple East African jurisdictions, the message is clear. A judgment entered against you in Kigali can follow you to Kampala. Assets tied to projects in Uganda are not automatically insulated from obligations incurred under Rwandan law. The principle of reciprocal judgment enforcement, which underpins commercial trust across borders, is alive and functioning, at least between Rwanda and Uganda.
For MUA Insurance, the next challenge is practical rather than legal. Registering a foreign judgment is one thing. Actually attaching and recovering funds from ongoing construction projects involves a separate and often complex enforcement process, one that depends on the availability of liquid proceeds, the cooperation of joint-venture partners, and the speed with which Roko Construction Rwanda can respond, if its principals choose to respond at all.
The Bigger Picture for Uganda’s Construction Sector
Uganda’s construction industry has grown significantly over the past decade, attracting regional and international players into joint ventures with local firms. That growth has been broadly positive for infrastructure development. But cases like this one expose a vulnerability in the model. When a foreign joint-venture partner carries unresolved legal baggage from another jurisdiction, the consequences can land squarely on Ugandan soil, affecting project timelines, payment flows, and the reputations of local partners who may have had no knowledge of the underlying disputes.
There is no suggestion in the available facts that the Ugandan joint-venture partners were complicit in any wrongdoing. But the situation raises legitimate questions about the due diligence that contractors, government procurement officers, and project owners conduct before signing agreements with cross-border entities.
The case will likely be watched closely by legal practitioners, insurers, and infrastructure developers across East Africa. It is a reminder that in an increasingly integrated regional economy, a court ruling in one capital can reshape the financial landscape in another.
As MUA Insurance moves toward enforcement, one question lingers: how thorough is Uganda’s procurement vetting process for foreign construction partners, and should a judgment of this nature have surfaced sooner, before shovels ever hit the ground on these projects?
