Simba Group Lawyers set to Appeal Vantage court ruling
Drake Nyamugabwa
Simba Group lawyers have vowed to appeal the commercial division of high court ruling that dismissed a case in which Simba group owned by Businessman Dr. Patrick Bitature had filed an application for an injunction to the advertisement and auctioning of their four prime properties in the ongoing loan saga with South African moneylenders, Vantage Mezzanine Fund.
Bitature’s Lawyer Muwema said that they are set to appeal the ruling by Justice Stephen Mubiru because Justice Mubiru Mubiru has reviewed Justice Sekaanas ruling in an
application for an injunction and that the judge can’t constitute himself into a court of appeal to determine Justice Sekaana’s rulings.
“We are going to appeal the judgment. Was there an application for review before him? Isn’t that evidence of outright bias? Did he have to go that far in an application for an injunction?” Bitature’s lawyer Muwema said
Justice Stephen Mubiru had ruled that it was unfortunate that Simba Properties sued Counsel Robert Kirunda, Counsel Noah Shamah Wasige of Kirunda and Wasige Advocates and Bailiff Festus Katerega of Quick Way Auctioneers and Court Bailiff in their individual capacity, yet they were representing a known entity (Vantage) when they advertised their properties for auctioning in the newspapers.
"On the basis of all the foregoing considerations, I found that this application and the underlying suit, were entirely misconceived on account of the fact that they were instituted against agents of a known principal and on ground that the matters placed in issue in the suit are already the subject of a subsisting arbitral process,” ruled Justice Mubiru.
The lawyers are wondering why the Judge determined the main application in application for an injunction, yet the grounds for grant of injunction define the scope of inquiry in such an application.
“In the result, I found that a prima facie case had not been established. There were no serious questions of the law and fact to be tried by this court to justify the grant of a temporary injunction.
The application was thus dismissed with costs to the respondents and the underlying suit was struck out with costs to the defendants.” the judge further ruled.
Bitature’s lawyers are curious as to why Justice Mubiru did not analyses the first limb of the case where judge Sekaana found that Vantage failed to prove it exists as a partnership in South Africa.
“They (Vantage) presented a deed signed by one party which court refused because a partnership cannot be formed by one party. Why didnt Mubiru also look at this fact, since the deed they relied on in Civil Division could not prove existence of a partnership. I think an appeal of his ruling is proper” they argued.
