Ham Vs DTB: Over 17 Law Firms Summoned for a Pre-Hearing Conference to determine hearing dates.
Drake Nyamugabwa
The Supreme Court has issued a judicial summon to over 17 Law firms for a Pre-Hearing Conference to determine hearing dates for the listed appeals and applications and to establish the format for presenting arguments, including the time frames for filing written submissions.
The summons that were signed and stamped by Supreme Court Registrar Harriet Ssali Nalukwago on May 29th, 2023, also states that during the conference the invited lawyers are not required to wear court robes.
Among the law firms summoned includes: Muwema and Company Advocates, Kimanje Nsibambi Advocates, AF Mpanga Advocates, Magezi, Ibale and Company Advocates, Mujuzi and Company Advocates, MRK Advocates, Rwakafuuzi and Company Advocates, Mugerwa Kusaasira and Company Advocates, Sebalu and Lule Advocates, Mmaks Advocates, the Legal Department of National Forestry Authority, Akampumuza and Company Advocates, Jjingo Ssempijja and Company Advocates, Mujuzi and Company Advocates, Okello Oryem and Company Advocates, Abaine Buregyeya and Company Advocates, and the lawyers representing Bank of Uganda in the application filed by Christopher Kisembo and Another against the Cooperative Bank Limited in Liquidation.
The prominent public interest case on the top list scheduled for the pre-hearing is the case between City businessman Hamis Kiggundu against Diamond Trust Bank Uganda and Diamond Trust Bank Kenya in the Supreme Court.
In this case, above, Hamis Kiggundu seeks among others, a judgment on admission, arguing that the lawyers representing DTB admitted in lower court records that their client operated without a license as required under the Financial Institutions Act of Uganda.
Ham’s legal team has requested judgment to be entered on admission in accordance with Order 13 Rule 6 of the Civil Procedure Rules, which allows courts to issue judgments based on the admission of facts made in pleadings or at any stage of the suit.
In this case, the Commercial Court ruled in Ham’s favor considering not only the admission of facts but also the illegality committed by DTB Kenya by operating without a license when granting the loan in question. However. On the other hand DTB’s lawyers argue that the Supreme Court Justices should disregard the judgment on admission and refer the matter back to the High Court Commercial Division for a fresh hearing.
