PETITIONED: Sudhir Ruparelia,

City businessman, Sudhir Ruparelia has adduced evidence against city lawyers whom he dragged to court over conflict of interest in the BoU, Crane Bank saga.

Mr Ruparelia dragged David Mpanga of AF Mpanga Advocates and Timothy Kanyerezi Masembe of MMAKS Advocates to Court last week. He accuses the two for professional breach of trust and conflict of interest when they accepted to represent Bank of Uganda in a case where BoU is the complaint against Ruparelia.

Affidavit in reply – 1063 of 2017

In an affidavit on September 11, 2017, says In reply to paragraph 7 of the Affidavit “I know that the shareholding in Crane Bank is directly and substantially in issue in HCCS 493 of 2017 and the results of the MMAKS opinion will be wholly relied upon to dispute the allegations contained in the Plaint”. He adds “In further reply, MMAKS did not just do a search as Mr. Sembatya claims but went ahead to advice about any shareholding anomalies and propose corrections. The manner of and even legality of some of the transfers are fundamentally in issue in HCCS 493 of 2017”.

David Mpanga, will have to convince court that has never worked for Sudhir as person.

However, Masembe told a local daily that he wasn’t representing Ruparelia as an individual but rather he represented his companies Mr Ruparelia has interests in.

“I am familiar with that consent judgment and I want to say that I still work for it but Sudhir is Sudhir not those business entities,” Masembe was quoted.

Again Mr Ruparelia in his affidavit says “In further reply to the said paragraphs I know that MMAKS advocates have acted for Crane Bank and the Board (on which I sit) in the matters in issue in HCCS 493 of 2017 and have obtained knowledge as a result of acting as lawyers. Some of these matters in issue include but are not limited to; issues of shareholding, issues on the duties of directors; issues to do with Infinity Investments Limited and issues to do with Technology Associates. MMAKS Advocates will further be required as witnesses regarding the day to day running of the 3rd Respondent.”

Despite evidence adduced by Sudhir,Timothy Masembe Kanyerezi says he has worked for companies where Sudhir has interests but denies working for Sudhir the person.

Ruparelia says that the assertion that MMAKS Advocates have never been his personal lawyers or lawyers for companies in which he has interests is manifestly false.

In support of his affidavit, Mr Ruparelia has adduced evidence in form of receipt under which the two lawyers were paid their professional fee.

“ln further reply to the said paragraph, I know that MMAKS Advocates was instructed to represent Crane Bank Limited, Meera Investments Limited, Rosebud Limited and Speke Hotel (1996) Limited, . Companies in which I have an interest in a dispute regarding memorandum and articles of Association of the said companies and a law firm Joel Cox Advocates. A consent judgement was subsequently entered and signed on behalf of Crane Bank Limited, Meera Investments Limited, Rosebud Limited and Speke Hotel (1996) Limited by Mr Timothy Masembe Kanyerezi of MMAKS Advocates. The allegation by Mr Sembatya that MMAKS has routinely acted against me is patently false”