The proprietor of Ham Enterprises Limited, Businessman Hamis Kiggundu has petitioned the Chief Justice, Alfonse Owiny-Dollo, over refusal by the registrar to fix a hearing date for an application seeking judgment in the shs120 billion appeal case.
Ham dragged DTB -Uganda and DTB-Kenya to Commercial Court for allegedly fraudulently taking over Shs120 billion from his accounts without his knowledge and consent which consequently directed that he is refunded the money taken from his account.
On November 23, Ham filed the application seeking judgment on what he says DTB admitted on appeal in their written submissions filed at the Supreme Court.
Last month Ham wrote to the assistant registrar Didas Muhumuza requesting for a hearing date of the application to determine its propriety.
However the registrar declined to set the hearing date on grounds that it did not raise new issues and would be taken care of in the final judgment. This prompted Ham to petition Owiny-Dollo, also a member of the panel complaining that such an act exhibits bias.
“Cognisant of the fact that applications to the court are not determined by views of the Registrars, we requested that our client’s application be forwarded to the Justices of the court for the necessary action,” Ham’s lawyers led by Fred Muwema and Arnold Kimara stated.
Kimara asserts that his client’s application remains in limbo with a possibility that its propriety will not be investigated and yet it can be rendered moot by the financial decision of the court, which is due any time.
“Except for apparent bias, there is no reason why my client is denied chance to be heard and possibly succeed on the appeal when his application for judgment on admission is considered,” he said.
Ham seeks a court finding on whether lending of money in Uganda from funds which are not derived from deposits taken are held in Uganda, does not require a license from the Bank of Uganda. He also seeks orders on whether Agency Banking regulations 2017 do not apply to a contractual agency relationship derived between two or more banks on the management of credit facilities.
He asserts that the bank agreed with him that the Court of Appeal justices – Richard Buteera, Christopher Madrama and Kenneth Kakuru – did not address the issues of illegality in conducting financial institutions business in Uganda contrary to the provision of Financial Institutions Act.
He also purports that he and the bank faulted the justices for abandoning the grounds raised for abandoning the grounds raised at Court of Appeal and irregularly introduced new grounds of appeal that were implicitly set out in the memorandum of appeal to arrive to its decision.
According to the businessman, they also agreed that the justices erred in finding that DTB was never heard by the trial court before their joint written statement of defence was struck out and judgment entered in his favour.
“The thrust of DTB’s arguments and submissions in this appeal amounts to a clear, unequivocal and positive admissions to the grounds I raised,” Ham submits.
He adds there is no dispute for the Supreme Court to determine in respect of the admitted grounds and the appeal ought to stand settled in his lawsuit.
However, the Lawyers representing DTB received the application in protest, saying it has not been signed by the Supreme Court registrar.
