High Court in Kampala has ordered lawyer and politician Musumba Isaac Isanga – the former State Minister for Regional Foreign Affairs to recover a liquidated demand of UGX425 million to Quid Financials Ltd.
The said amount arose from sale of land comprised in Kyadondo Block 214 Plot 1 149 that Musumba had sold to Quid, but failed to deliver vacant possession of the land. He would, however, sign a document acknowledging shs425 million owed to Quid.
Musumba had sought an application for orders that court grants him unconditional leave to appear and defend Civil Suit but also costs of the application be in the cause.
According to the court document, Musumba brought an application on grounds that the main suit is playful and annoying as it discloses no cause of action. He also claims that he has a meritorious and substantial defense to the main suit.
Hon. Justice Jeanne Rwakakooko, however, dismissed the application on grounds that it was filed on 17th February, 2020 which was out of time, and the Applicant did so without leave of court.
“Therefore, I find that this application was filed out of time and should therefore be struck out.”
Justice Rwakakooko also noted that there were illegalities in deponing of additional affidavit in support of the application by Musumba.
“This application was supported by an affidavit sworn by Barenzi Johnny Patrick, one of the Applicant’s lawyers. He deponed in paragraph 1 of his affidavit that he was instructed by the Applicant who was not in Uganda at the time, to depone the affidavit on his behalf. Later, on 1st July, 2020, without leave of court, the Applicant himself deponed an additional affidavit in support of the application.”
Airtel Africa and SpaceX Announce Strategic Partnership to Launch Starlink Direct to Cell Connectivity Across Africa“The manner in which the Applicant filed the additional affidavit was disrespectful of court processes,” noted Madam Justice.
Also, the court learnt from the Applicant’s additional affidavit that Mr. Barenzi swore an affidavit in support of the application without the requisite authority. “…he was not an appointed agent of the Applicant, but was simply given instructions as counsel for the Applicant. He was not given authority by the Applicant to depone an affidavit in this application on his behalf as claimed…”
Justice Rwakakooko noted that the law is says that a person swearing an affidavit on behalf of another must present their authority in writing, and attach the same to the affidavit.
“Having resolved issues I & 2 in the positive, it follows that this application is not granted. As already stated above, I find that the application was filed out of time, and that the affidavit in support of the application was defective. This court struck out Mr. Barenzi’s affidavit in support of the application together with its attachments because it was sworn without authority,” she ruled.
Court also dismissed claims by Musumba that he has a plausible defense to the main suit and that his application raises triable issues. “He makes mere assertions that are not substantiated upon.”
“…in this case, the Respondent is entitled to the UGX. 425,000,000/ = claimed in the specially endorsed plaint, and costs,” Madam Justice gave an order, adding that, “This application is denied.”
