There was a bitter exchange, between prominent lawyer Denis Nyombi and Justice David Batema of Mukono High Court, after the latter refused him (lawyer) to respond to an application submitted by city business Godfrey Kirumira’s lawyer.
The standoff stretched close to an hour embedded in endless arguments. This was during the hearing of a sh15bn land case involving Prof. Minaz Karmali and Kirumira who are all claiming ownership.
The contested 85-acre piece of land is comprised in FRV 1110 Folio 13 Plot 393 Kyaggwe block 113 at Katikolo within Namanve Industrial Park in Seeta, Mukono district. “I am not interested in your applications. I just want to hear the main suit,” Batema spoke loudly.
However, Nyombi insisted that the application is important because it questions the legality of the case, stressing that it is allowed in court courts because it may result to the disposal of the main case. The judge, however, said it should be done in a legal way. “Both of you are bringing technicality,” Batema noted.
The dramatic scene took place yesterday as Kirumira’s lawyer, Francis Sebowa, sought for the dismissal of Prof. Karmali’s suit, on grounds that there was separation of the signature page from the text of affidavits. He cited an election petition case dismissed by the same judge on the same grounds.
However, the Insight Post learnt that Nyombi was also expected to raise an objection, seeking disposal of Kirumira’s land case against Karmali, the brother to the late Mukwano, Amirali Karmali.
The visibly angry judge made a ruling without a reply from the other party. “The affidavits in support of the case is clearly irregular,” Batema ruled.
The furious Nyombi stood up, pointing fingers at the judge, wondering how a ruling could be made before he replies to issues raised by Kirumira’s lawyer. “Go, go and do it in another court,” the judge told Nyombi, as he (Nyombi) took to his seat shaking his head.
However, argument between the two reemerged when it came to consolidation of two the cases one filed by Kirumira against Prof. Karmali, while another was filed by Karmali against Kirumira and Capital Ventures International Limited (CVIL).
Karmali’s lawyer argued that the two cases contain different concerns and parties. He also contested the judge’s interim order, restraining his client (Karmali) from accessing the land yet Kirumira is allowed to access it.
This prompted Batema to yell at the lawyer, disagreeing with his suggestion. “I have to question the order,” the lawyer replied vigorously.
The judge responded: “I will not argue with you because it is not legal advocacy. You can appeal against my decision if you disagree it. The order is made. Have you heard?”. Nyombi said he disagreed with the order, but Batema further responded saying “I am the judge”.
The judge had extended an order, restraining Prof. Karmali, his agents, employees or any other person acting for his benefit from evicting Kirumira from the land, pending determination of the main case.
But the investor says Kirumira is misconstruing the order and the same is misleading and abused by him to deprive him (Karmali) of his interest on the land that is not part of the disputed land. He says the interim order also mentions plot 392 which does not exist.
Lawyer Nyombi complained that Kirumira’s lawyer intentionally filed another suit, well knowing there is an earlier suit, which he contends is an abuse of court process.
Justice Batema was prompted to call the two lawyers and talked to them leading to a reconciliation. He also retracted his earlier ruling and consolidated the two cases.
“Now that I have consolidated the two suits, your applications are overtaken by events. They stand dismissed and costs will follow later,” he ruled.
The Judge also directed the parties to draft a joint scheduling memorandum, witness statements and trial bundles, within three weeks.
Scheduling conference is where parties agree on the issues to be resolved in court before a hearing date is set by the judge.
According to court documents, which The Insight Post has seen, it is alleged that Kirumira transferred Plot 393, Block 113 in the heart of the Namanve Industrial Park into his name, yet the land belonged to Prof. Karmali.
The alleged transfer of the said land by Kirumira, court documents indicate, was discovered by Prof. Karmali when Uganda Investment Authority (UIA) wanted to buy part of the land and lease it to investors.
Karmali argues that the land was placed into the care of Capital Ventures international Limited (CVIL) to conduct valuation and survey before purchase from Karmali is conducted, but it was discovered that Kirumira had allegedly taken possession of the land at sh400m.
The investor says whereas the stamp duty fees for the land to be transferred were valued by the Government valuer at sh670m, Kirumira allegedly paid only sh1.23m.
He maintains that you cannot have a kibanja on freehold land. He says the mother title for two of the three plots was 615 block 113, dated November 20, 2012.
Court documents indicate that Kirumira bought the land in question from Yokana Galikwoleka Mukasa in October 2017, who passed on July 1996.
But Karmali claims to have bought the land from one Charles Kagenya in November 2010, noting that Galikwoleka Mukasa was a shamba boy of Kagenya.
In his affidavits, Karmali told court that there is no way a dead person could have personally sold land, signed transfer forms and handed over the title to a living person as Kirumira alleges.
In his suit, Kirumira says he has been the registered proprietor of the land comprised in plots 392 and 393, respectively, for the past five years. He says the kibanja has an access road to the titled land owned by him.
How it started.
Karmali says when UIA wanted to buy part of the land for industrial development, it placed it under the care of CVIL to conduct valuation and survey before purchase from him (Karmali).
However, it was discovered that Kirumira had allegedly taken possession of the land after CVIL failed to pay back a sh400m loan facility that he had advanced to it.
The investor seeks a court declaration that the contract between him CVIL was a contingent contract unable to give any other party rights until the fulfillment of its terms.
He further seeks a declaration that the transaction between Kirumira and CVIL dated October 14, 2016, was done fraudulently. The case was adjourned to April 7, 2022, for mention.
English 