The court held that since there is no evidence suggesting that the alleged delay in submitting fee note No. 14 by the appellant was responsible for the failure by the respondent to execute the construction court could not see any justification for denying the appellant the amount of fees claimed in fee Note No. 1A. If the respondent had so wished, the respondent could have carried on with the construction, soon after it received drawings approved by the KCC. Therefore the trial judge erred in depriving the appellant the proper remuneration as claimed.