Monday , June 27 2022
Home / Business / FULL JUDGMENT: Bitature vs Vantage

FULL JUDGMENT: Bitature vs Vantage

Bitature and his companies can be sued by Vantage, court has ruled

Court throws all costs on lawyer Fred Muwema for misleading client

Kampala, Uganda | THE INDEPENDENT | The Commercial Division of the High Court in Kampala has dismissed an application by Ugandan businessman Patrick Bitature  and Simba properties Co. Ltd, Simba telecom, Linda properties and Elgon Terrace seeking a temporary injunction against Vantage and it’s agencies from commencing any private prosecution or legal action until final disposal of a pending contempt of court case.

“The applicants’ (Bitature and his companies) need for such protection must be weighed against the corresponding need of the respondents (Vantage) to be protected against injury resulting from being prevented from exercising their own legal rights for which it may not be adequately compensated in damages if uncertainty were resolved in its favour at the trial,” ruled Justice Stephen Mubiru.

“The application catastrophically lacks a legal basis. Consequently, the application is hereby dismissed.”

Court ruled that the Simba companies can be privately sued by Vantage Mezzanine Fund II partnership in a bid to recover a loan fo $10million it extended to the businessman eight years ago.

The businessman had run to the Commercial Division of the High Court in Kampala, .
But in his ruling delivered this morning, Justice Stephen Mubiru dismissed the businessman’s application for “lack of legal basis”.

The court went on to put all costs on lawyer Fred Muwema for not guiding his clients.

” This application catastrophically lacks a legal basis. The legal costs and time wasted in this litigation could have been avoided entirely if the applicants’ advocates had discharged their duties to the expected minimum standards of professional competence. It qualifies as a “rare and exceptional” case where it would not be fair for the applicants to bear the costs. The costs must be met by the applicants’ advocates in person. Consequently, the application is hereby dismissed. The costs of this application will be met personally by counsel on record for the applicants,” Justice Mubiru ruled.

READ FULL RULING HERE – CLICK -2022-ugcommc-28

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *