Court asked to dismiss Sudhir case against lawyers

Kampala, Uganda | THE INDEPENDENT | Ssebalu and Lule Advocates, a city law firm has asked the High Court to dismiss the application filled by Businessman Sudhir Ruparelia accusing the firm of conflict of interest.

In 2017, Sudhir’s Company Crane Management Services sued DfCU Bank over rent arrears amounting to 2.9 billion shillings. The money was in respect to the properties that were formally owned by Crane Bank but have since been sold to DFCU by the Bank of Uganda in a takeover process.

However, DFCU hired lawyers from Ssebalu and Lule advocates including James Sebugenyi Mukasa to represent them in the matter.

But, Sudhir said that he was against the decision of DFCU to hire the same law firm since, in 2012, it had been representing Meera Investments Limited, which is part of the Ruparelia Company owned by Sudhir.

Sudhir then petitioned the Commercial Division of the High Court seeking orders to stop Ssebalu and Lule advocates from representing DFCU due to conflict of interest.

His lawyers on Wednesday led by Joseph Kyazze told Court presided by Justice Paul Gadenya that the law firm is not fit to represent DFCU since they are likely to reveal confidential information.

Kyazze argued that Ssebalu and Lule Advocates in an email dated February, 17th, 2016 was instructed by Meera Investments Limited to review for them tenancy agreements and they reportedly committed to always be available for consultation.

However, the respondents through their lawyers of Bwanika, Kalenge and Company Advocates and Peter Walubiri asked court to dismiss the case arguing that it has no merit whatsoever.

Walubiri in Particular submitted that there is no way how a law firm can be accused of conflict of interest because it has a right to practice its profession enshrined in the Constitution of Uganda.

Walubiri also submitted that DFCU bank under article 28 of the constitution is entitled to a right to fair hearing and by so, it implies that they can hire lawyers of their choice.

Walubiri wondered under which circumstances court can grant the orders sought by Sudhir.

He said that the mere fact that the law firm was once retained by Ruparelia is not a valid reason that they will act against him.

Walubiri further argued it is inappropriate to allege that the law firm is holding confidential information without explaining the exact information they have in confidence.

He noted that the burden of proof now lies against Sudhir who is the applicant.

Walubiri also told court that there is no evidence that the law firm has ever acted for Ruparelia Group generally.

Justice Gadenya adjourned the matter to April, 24th, 2019 for ruling.

******

URN