UGANDA, Kampala | Real Muloodi News | Lawyers representing businessman Hamis Kiggundu, from Muwema and Company Advocates as well as Kimara Advocates and Consultants, have expressed their intention to challenge the recent decision of the Supreme Court in the case against DTB Kenya and Uganda.
Last week, the Supreme Court ruled that DTB-Kenya did not commit any illegality when providing credit facilities to Hamis Kiggundu of Ham Enterprises, a Kampala businessman.
However, the Supreme Court referred the case back to the High Court for a fresh hearing. This case involves allegations made by Ham against DTB-Uganda and DTB-Kenya regarding the fraudulent siphoning of over USh120 billion from his accounts without his knowledge and consent.
In a statement, Ham’s lawyers criticised the Supreme Court, stating that the handling of the case was flawed and that the resulting judgment went against the public policy of Uganda.
“ In the handling of the case, the court intentionally set up its ladder against the wrong wall and it ended up resolving the wrong problem,” the lawyers said.
The lawyers pointed out that the Supreme Court focused on two imaginary issues that influenced its decision.
Firstly, they claim that the court wrongly believed that Ham was using legal technicalities to avoid paying his debts to DTB.
Secondly, they argued that the court mistakenly believed that the High Court decision, which favoured Ham, outlawed syndicated lending transactions between foreign banks and Ugandans.
The lawyers expressed concern over the court’s failure to address the facts of the case and its misunderstanding of the sovereignty of Ugandan law.
They argued that the judgment subscribed to the deregulation of foreign-led financial transactions in Uganda, which they deemed a legal absurdity.
Ham’s lawyers criticised the Supreme Court for allowing DTB to introduce the issue of syndicated loans into the case, despite it not being part of the original appeal.
They argued that the court should have required DTB to submit a cross-appeal or notice of affirmation before introducing new matters.
Additionally, they accused the Supreme Court of usurping the power of Parliament by discriminating between foreign and local banks about a statute of general application in the banking sector.
The lawyers asserted that the Supreme Court judgment contradicted Uganda’s public policy, as it selectively applied rules and laws and denied a litigant the right to plead their case.
They stated their intention to challenge the constitutionality of the judgment, arguing that it was issued in contravention of the Constitution.
While the lawyers acknowledged the potential danger of the Supreme Court judgment, they believed it would remain largely irrelevant to the regulation of commercial banking and legal practice in Uganda.
They emphasised that no serious bank or lawyer would risk engaging in illicit money transfers and defying court rules. Therefore, they expressed their determination to challenge the decision.
“We therefore cannot just mourn the passing of this Supreme Court decision, we shall challenge it.”
Ham’s lawyers remain committed to fighting for their client’s case and ensuring that the legal process is upheld.
READ MORE LIKE THIS: