The Commercial Court has dismissed an application by Ronnie Ndyareeba and ordered him to pay Shs230 million to his relative and business colleague Joseph Arinaitwe.
In the main suit, Joseph Arinaitwe claims that sometime between the year 2017 and 2018, Ndyareeba Ronald approached him for some cash advances to assist the latter in his businesses. The two were related as Cousins and business colleagues.
Arinaitwe advanced to Ndyareeba monies at different intervals to the tune of Shs257,150,000. Ndyareeba issued to Arinaitwe post-dated cheques as security for payment of the borrowed monies. However Ndyareeba was unable to pay within the agreed period.
By a memorandum of understanding dated 7th December 2018, the parties agreed to a payment schedule by which the last payment was to be effected by 19th April 2019. Ndyareeba only made part payment of UGX 27,000,000/= leaving the balance of Shs230,150,000 which Arinaitwe claims in the summary suit.
According to Ndyareeba in his application before Court, he does not owe Arinaitwe the alleged sum of Shs230,150,000 or at all because he (Arinaitwe) was not licensed to advance and/or lend money in his individual capacity.
Joseph Arinaitwe, the Respondent, in his defence stated that the application by the Applicant (Ndyareeba) was devoid of any merit, is frivolous, vexatious and a mere waste of the court’s time. He stated that he is neither a money lender nor does he carry on a business of money lending. He only made advances to Ndyareeba as a business colleague free of any interest unlike what a money lender would have done in the ordinary course of business.
At the hearing, the Applicant was represented by Mr. Tumwesigye Wycliffe from M/S TALP Advocates while the Respondent was represented by Mr. Akampurira Jude from M/S MACB Advocates. It was agreed and directed that the matter proceeds by way of written submissions which were duly filed by Counsel for both parties.
Hon. Justice Boniface Wamala stated in his ruling; “In the present case, I have not seen an unequivocal denial from the Applicant that he did not receive the sum of money claimed by the Respondent or any sum of money at all. I have also not seen a denial of the allegation that, of the sum of money allegedly borrowed, the Applicant made a part payment of UGX 27,000,000/=.”
“In all therefore, my finding is that the Applicant has not raised any bona fide triable issue of fact or law that would entitle him to being granted leave to appear and defend the suit. I have therefore found no merit in the application by the Applicant and the same ought to be dismissed.”
“I make the following orders: The application for leave to appear and defend the summary suit has no merit and is accordingly dismissed. Payment of UGX 230,150,000/= by the Applicant to the Respondent. The costs of the application and of the main suit,” he ruled.
