Interim certificates in construction contracts are estimates and not final, and proper remeasurement must be followed to determine final payment.

[8] The significance of these two dates may be gleaned from the judgment of the learned High Court Judge found at p 16 of his judgment:

"... although the letter of termination was dated on the 13th January 2003 and received by the Plaintiff on the 20th February 2003, there were ample evidence to show that the Plaintiff had abandoned the construction site as early as mid-December 2002. This is evident by the appointment of the third parties to complete the uncompleted contract works."

[9] The learned High Court Judge found that LHF had abandoned the contract. At p 17 of the judgment, His Lordship opined:

In the circumstances, the Court was of the view that the defendant was not in breach of the contract when it terminated it and therefore was entitled to appoint other contractors to finish the uncompleted contract works. The Court was also of the view that since the defendant was at all material time the main contractor of the contract work and it suffices that the issuance of the memo to the plaintiff were indicative that the plaintiff had abandoned the construction site."

[10] Being over cautious perhaps, the learned High Court Judge also stated that if he was wrong in finding that Usima was not in breach of the contract, the amount claimed by LHF based on the interim certificates would be subjected to remeasurement.

[11] Aggrieved by the decision of the High Court, LHF lodged an appeal to the Court of Appeal. By its decision on 2 December 2013, the Court of Appeal unanimously allowed the appeal and the decision of the High Court was set aside. The Court of Appeal also dismissed Usimas counterclaim.