Ham Enterprises (U) Ltd through their lawyers, Muwema and Company advocates & Solicitors, and Kimara Advocates and Consultants, have officially petitioned the Chief Justice of Uganda over what he calls bias and injustices at the supreme court.
These say that the Supreme court, appears inclined to perform its cardinal duty of seating and hearing Ham’s application of Judgment on admission which is part of the Appeal.
On the Contrary, Ham’s application, if successfully heard on the merits, would quickly expose Diamond Trust Bank’s admitted facts which need not otherwise be proved in accordance with S.58 of the Evidence Act.
It is the benefit of apparent bias in favor of Diamond Trust Bank which condoned their failure to file a cross appeal or notice affirming the decision of the Court of Appeal.
Diamond Trust Bank through its lawyer K&K advocates admitted to committing illegalities on court records both in the High Court on Monday August 31, 2020 where the bank state that it did not have a license permitting it to operate in Uganda as required by Sections 4(1) and 117 of the Financial Institutions Act and in their November 2021 submissions at the Court of Appeal they emphasized that;
The Court of Appeal justices erred at law when they failed to address the Substantial point of illegality upon which judgment was rightfully entered at the high court specifically stating that,
“The learned Justices were entitled to first deal with the grounds regarding the procedure adopted by the trial Judge in striking out the defendants’ pleadings and granting the impugned orders before dealing with the other grounds.”
Ham Enterprises through his lawyers, applied for Judgement at the Supreme Court on November 23, 2021 on grounds that the justices at the Court of Appeals failed to address the substantial issue of illegality as rightfully entered at High Court, and against DTB’s admission to the same through their submission.
He further wrote to the supreme court applying for fixation of the date for hearing of their application for Judgment on the 26th November 2021.
The assistant registrar of the supreme court, Didas Muhumuza responded by writing an opinionated letter in which he openly expressed his view against hearing of the application instead of forwarding the Application for judgment to the court justices for the necessary action as his constitutional mandate requires.
He stated that, “In my view, your instant application does not raise any new issue to necessitate any further / new fillings, which would any case require leave of court to do so.”
“You are therefore, advised to wait for the final decision of court which will hopefully address our concerns” he added.
This opinion, was however shared out of panic and mere desire to spread falsehood got circulated on different social media platforms as a court ruling, just to undermine Hams application that awaits judgment.
Ham and lawyers however noted that “Cognisant of the fact that applications to the court are not determined by views of the Registrars, we requested that our client’s application be forwarded to the Justices of the court for the necessary action,”
They added that Such a stance does not foster the administration of Justice as it inevitably erodes Ham’s non-dirigible right to be heard which is guaranteed by Article 28 of the Constitution.
Ham Enterprises (U) Ltd have through their lawyers, officially petitioned the Chief Justice of Uganda over the bias and injustices and the supreme court.
He among others note that the application remains in limbo with a possibility that its propriety will not be investigated and yet it can be rendered moot by the financial decision of the court, which is due any time.
“Except for apparent bias, there is no reason why Ham is denied chance to be heard and possibly succeed on the appeal when his application for judgment on admission is considered.
It is now clear and so evident to every open and fair minded member of society that has been following this case that the court appears inclined to perform its cardinal duty of seating and hearing Ham’s application of Judgment on admission which is part of the Appeal,” he says.
On the Contrary, Ham’s application, if successfully heard on the merits, would quickly expose Diamond Trust Bank’s admitted facts which need not otherwise be proved in accordance with S.58 of the Evidence Act.
It is the benefit of apparent bias in favor of Diamond Trust Bank which condoned their failure to file a cross appeal or notice affirming the decision of the Court of Appeal.
Ham suspects that he is being told to wait for the final judgment so that the court can pronounce its findings on the new grounds which Diamond Trust Bank smuggled in the appeal via the proceedings of November 11, 2021.
