Businessman Patrick Bitature has been ordered by the Commercial Court not to interfere with the shareholding of his four companies until the court determines the loan dispute between him and the South African financiers of Vantage Mezzanine Fund II Partnership and Vantage Mezzanine Fund II Proprietary Limited.

Vintage sued Simba Properties Investment Co. Ltd, Simba Telecom Ltd, Elgon Terrace Hotel Ltd and Linda Properties Ltd together with Patrick Bitature, his wife Carol Bitature, Uganda Registration Services Bureau (URSB) and the commissioner of land registration.

In a ruling chaired by Justice Thomas Ocaya, court said that if Bitature was to be allowed to change the shareholding of the mentioned companies would cause an eventual court ruling on the same non implementable.

“In the interests of justice, I find that the applicants ought to obtain the reliefs sought in order to preserve their action in the main suit. In the premises, I make the following orders, in the interests of justice: (a) An order issues preventing 1st respondent (commissioner land registration) from taking any actions or conducting any proceedings in respect of the certificates of title that the 2nd to 7th respondents mortgaged to the applicants, that would affect the applicants’ rights and the merits of the final arbitral award and its addendum pending court’s determination of the application for recognition and enforcement of the arbitral award,” the judgment reads in part.

According to court records, Bitature obtained a loan facility of $10 million from Vantage but failed to pay in the scheduled time leading to a pile-up of interest, which he declined to pay. He then ran to court arguing that Vantage had no locus to sue him because it wasn’t legally operating in Uganda.

A number of court cases including arbitration have all held that Bitature is liable to pay the said monies. Bitature also filed a case in court to stop the enforcement of the arbitral award. According to the loan agreements, Bitature mortgaged the said properties to get the $ 10 million loan. In the judgment, court found that Bitature wanted to change the shareholding of the companies so that by the time the final decision is issued, they would be in other hands.

“It is also not disputed that the 4th respondent (Elgon Terrace Hotel) filed a board resolution allotting 99400 shares to the 2nd (Simba Properties) and 6th respondent (Patrick Bitature). It is also not disputed that the 5th respondent (Linda Properties) filed a board resolution allotting 4900 shares to the 2nd respondent and the 3rd respondent (Simba Telecom). These resolutions are dated 14th August 2023 and 6th September 2023 respectively,” the court found.

Court also disagreed with the reasons of URSB and the commissioner land registration that if orders are issued to them not to register the new transactions on Bitature’s property, it would tantamount to stopping a public entity from undertaking its constitutional duties.

“Unlike what was represented by the 1st respondent (commissioner land registration), the collection of information only facilitates the exercise of its powers under that provision. It follows therefore that, in respect of the proceedings before the 1st respondent, the applicants’ application is not premature as there is a real likelihood of mortgage or other entries entered in favour of the applicants being cancelled in exercise of the 1st respondents above stated powers. In respect of the 8th respondent (URSB), there is a real likelihood that the 2nd to 7th respondents may take further steps that affect the applicants’ claims, in light of the Mezzanine financing agreements and the securities provided for therein, including shareholding, since the 5th and 6th respondents have already taken steps before the 8th respondents which, the applicants contend contravenes the award and aims at frustrating its enforcement,” court ruled.

Stories Continues after ad

The High Court Civil Division judge, Esta Nambayo has directed controversial city businessman Mukesh Shukla Shumuk to pay all costs and damages to Attorney General Kiryowa Kiwanuka after dismissing his Shs50bn case resulting from his business rivalry with late Bonny Mwebesa Katatumba.

Shumuk through his lawyers led the Court to order President Yoweri Kaguta Museveni’s government through the Attorney General to compensate him Shs50bn for malicious prosecution.

Shumuk told Court that in early 2013, Katatumba made a complaint to the police stating that he had conspired with one Hassan G.M Wandera to murder him.

He added that the allegation against him was therefore conspiracy to commit murder and police upon investigations of the matter, made a report to the Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP) who sanctioned the charges.

He stated that on the 8th January, 2013, through his lawyer Augustine Kibuka Musoke, he was summoned to police at Kampala Metropolitan Police Headquarters in connection to the charges of conspiracy to commit a felony.

He said that the following day, on 9th January, 2013 when he reported to the police pursuant to the summons, he was promptly arrested and detained at Central Police Station Kampala for the entire day until he was driven to Makindye Chief Magistrate’s Court where is was arraigned and charged on the count of Conspiracy to murder Katatumba.

He added that he denied the charges and State produced a number of witnesses to pin him.

However, before the conclusion of the case, the DPP withdrew the criminal charges against him without giving reasons why he did so and he based on that ground to insist that he was maliciously prosecuted.

In his defense, the Attorney General through Clare Atukunda stated that Police is mandated under Article 212 of the 1995 Constitution of Uganda Sections 4 (1) & 23 of the Police Act, Cap 303 to preserve law and order and to enforce the laws of Uganda.

She noted that in enforcing these laws, Police officers have the power to arrest any person even without a warrant or order of Court if there is a reasonable cause to suspect that the person has committed or is about to commit a cognisable offence as provided under S. 10 of the Criminal Procedure Code Act, Cap 116.

The DPP later based on Shumuk’s submissions during cross-examination where he admitted that Police did not act on its own accord to arrest him but was moved to do so after they received a complaint from the late Katatumba and as such, there was sufficient reason to cause suspicion that the he could have committed a cognisable/chargeable offence.

She added that the implication of Shumuk’s evidence is that his arrest was lawful and asked the Court to dismiss his case.

She boasted that there were no essential ingredients to prove malicious prosecution and submitted that the prosecution of the plaintiff was based on reasonable grounds that the prosecutors would secure a conviction based on the evidence gathered from the witnesses by the investigating police officers.

She explained that Katatumba, the complainant, lost interest in the case and requested the DPP to withdraw the charges against the Plaintiff resulting in discontinuation of proceedings against the plaintiff and his co-accused and was exercising her powers within the law.

She explained that Katatumba wrote to DPP requesting her to withdraw the charges from Shumuk explaining that they were trying to settle those cases out of court and that Shumk had requested that Katatumba first drop the criminal charges against him before any negotiations could go on.

In that letter, Katatumba said that it is in that spirit that he decided to drop the charges against the accused persons and requested the DPP to discontinue the charges against Shumuk.

In her ruling, judge Nambayo explained that, “I have already established that there was reasonable cause for the Police and the DPP to arrest and charge the Plaintiff in court. I find that the Plaintiff has not demonstrated that there was malice by the officers of the Defendant in the process of his arrest and arraignment before court. This ground therefore also fails,” she noted.

She added that, “In the whole therefore, I find that the Plaintiff has failed to prove a case of malicious prosecution against him by the officers of the Defendant. I would find no merit in this case which I do hereby dismiss from court and order that the Plaintiff pays costs to the Defendant.”

The Administrators of the estate of the late Katatumba led by Angella Katatumba are still fighting for a multibillion property which Shumuk claims to have bought.

Shumuk also claims to have entered into an agreement to sell land, Blacklines House in Kampala and Hotel Diplomat in Muyenga, a claim that the Katatumbas protest.

They insist that Shumuk forged their father’s signature which he used to try to grab their father’s estate.

Stories Continues after ad

The Minister of Justice and Constitutional Affairs Nobert Mao has asked the security forces of Police and Uganda People’s Defence Forces (UPDF) to explain where the alleged abducted supporters of the National Unity Platform (NUP) are.

Mao said during the launch of the third Quarterly Rule of Law Report for the year 2023. The Report highlights critical events and issues, including the appointment of new judicial officers, the introduction and passage of new legislation, reports on cases of human rights violations, empaneling of commissions of inquiry to investigate disputes of wide importance, the rising cases of enforced disappearance, violation of the rights of journalists, and general reports on the state of governance and the Rule of Law in Uganda.

The report comes at a time when there is ongoing boycott of parliament by the opposition legislators over the allegations of missing persons. The opposition MPs led by Nyendo-Mukungwe MP Mathias Mpuuga claim the government has failed to account for missing persons and the continuous detention of their supporters without trial.

“We acknowledge some of these weaknesses. We believe that the matter of November 18 has got to come to a close. I believe that the arrests and abductions must be explained.  I don’t think the security forces are lunatics. But I also don’t know why they don’t explain,” he said.

“It is not enough to say what you have done is bad. What law society should be doing is to say look, if you truly believe that somebody has done something wrong, arrest them. I don’t like it when police conduct itself as if they have a personal problem with anybody,” he said

He said; “Dear members of the security forces, you are acting on behalf of the State of Uganda. I know our people are provocative because I have been in many demonstrations like walk to work walk. Even war has rules. There are rules of teargassing people, arresting people so observe those rules thriving on human rights in Uganda”.

Stories Continues after ad