Connect with us

NEWS

DOCUMENT: Mabirizi Files 88 Grounds Why Supreme Court Should Force Kabaka To Reveal His Wealth

Published

on

Maverick city lawyer Male Mabirizi Kiwanuka has filed his 88 grounds to the Supreme Court asking it to force his Kabaka (king) Ronald Muwenda Mutebi II, who is also the Kabaka of Buganda to reveal all his wealth.

According to over 10,000 booklets filed at the Supreme Court registry, Mabirizi indicates that he is dissatisfied with the ruling of the court of appeal which ruled in favour of the Kabaka not to reveal his wealth to his subject Mabirizi in the historical Kabaka vs Mabirizi land case.

Justice Engonda Ntende, Ezekiel Muhanguzi and Hallen Obura ruled that high Court judge Patricia Basaaza Wasswa errored when she issued an order forcing the Kabaka to disclose his bank accounts, all identities of tenants sitting on the kingdoms land and all the land titles given back to the kingdom from the central government from 1993 when the kingdom was restored in the country.

The justices noted that Mabirizi would have gone to the land registry to understand the status of the kingdom land titles.

The appeal was allowed with costs which Mabirizi didn’t agree with. Below is his full appeal…

THE REPUBLIC OF UGANDA                                                                                                 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF UGANDA                                                                   AT KOLOLO-KAMPALA.

(SITTING BOTH AS A 1ST APPELLATE & A 2ND APPELLATE COURT)

CIVIL APPEAL No. 13 OF 2018.

(Arising out of Judgment of The Court of Appeal Ruling/Judgments (Egonda-Ntende, Hellen Obura & Ezekel Muhanguzi; JJA), read by the Deputy Registrar on 1st October 2018 in CIVIL APPEAL NO. 184 OF 2017 and Civil Applications NO. 144, 145, 231 & 271 of 2017.

[ARISING OUT OF HIGH COURT CIVIL DIVISION AT KAMPALA MISC. APPLICATION No. 41 OF 2017-RULING FOR DISCOVERY OF DOCUMENTS BY HON. LADY JUSTICE PATRICIA BASAZA-WASSWA ARISING OUT OF HIGH COURT CIVIL DIVISION MISC. CAUSE NO. 162 OF 2016 & MISC. APPLICATION NOs. 798, 1011 & 1012 OF 2016]

                                                                                                                                                     

MALE H. MABIRIZI K. KIWANUKA:::::::::::::::APPELLANT

VERSUS   

THE KABAKA OF BUGANDA:::::::::::::::::::::RESPONDENT

 

MEMORANDUM OF APPEAL.

MALE H. MABIRIZI K. KIWANUKA appeals to The Supreme Court of Uganda at Kololo-Kampala, as a first appellate court in respect of  Civil Applications No. 231 & 271 of 2017(MALE H. MABIRIZI K. KIWANUKA V. THE KABAKA OF BUGANDA) & Civil Applications No. 144 & 145 of 2017(THE KABAKA OF BUGANDA V. MALE H. MABIRIZI K. KIWANUKA) and as a second Appellate Court in respect of Civil Appeal No. 184 of 2017(THE KABAKA OF BUGANDA V. MALE H. MABIRIZI K. KIWANUKA); against the bigger PART of the Ruling, orders and omissions in Civil Applications No. 231 & 271 of 2017(MALE H. MABIRIZI K. KIWANUKA V. THE KABAKA OF BUGANDA), the Judgment, Orders and omissions in Civil Appeal No. 184 of 2017 (THE KABAKA OF BUGANDA V. MALE H. MABIRIZI K. KIWANUKA), and the omission to determine who should pay the costs for Civil Applications No. 144 & 145 of 2017(THE KABAKA OF BUGANDA V. MALE H. MABIRIZI K. KIWANUKA); of The Court of Appeal of Uganda at Kampala read by The Deputy Registrar, Court of Appeal on 1st October 2018 (Egonda-Ntende, Hellen Obura & Ezekiel Muhanguzi; JJA).

THE GROUNDS of appeal are that:

PART I: GROUNDS RELATING TO INVALIDITY & NULLITY OF   

             RULING/JUDGMENT.

  1. All the learned Justices of The Court of Appeal erred in law when they failed to deliver their rulings and judgments within the 60 days required by law, without any sufficient reason advanced hence vitiating the ruling(s)/judgment(s).
  2. All the learned Justices of The Court of Appeal erred in law in failing to indicate dates on which their respective ruling(s)/ judgment(s) were written rendering the decision null & void.
  3. All the learned Justices of The Court of Appeal erred law in determining the merits of the appeal after finding that the appeal was not properly before court making the judgment a nullity.
  4. In alternative to 3 above but without prejudice to it, all the learned Justices of The Court of Appeal erred in law when they determined the merits of the appeal before determining Civil Applications No. 231 and 271 of 2017 relating to incompetency of the appeal.

PART II: GROUNDS RELATING TO FAILURE BY THE COURT  

TO DETERMINE THE DISPUTES PLACED BEFORE THEM.

  1. All the learned Justices of The Court of Appeal erred in law and fact in failing to make a finding on the pleadings and evidence to the effect that the respondent’s affidavits in reply to Court of Appeal Civil Applications No. 231 & 271 of 2017 were filed out of time.
  2. All the learned Justices of The Court of Appeal erred in law and fact in failing to make a finding on the pleading & evidence to the effect that the purported power of attorney upon which the respondent’s affidavits in reply to Court of Appeal Civil Applications No. 231 & 271 of 2017 were based on a manipulated signature and generally illegal.
  3. All the learned Justices of The Court of Appeal erred in law and fact in failing to make a finding on the pleading & evidence to the effect that the respondent was estopped and precluded from challenging discovery proceedings after failing to respond to the Notice to produce documents within the ten days prescribed by law.
  4. All the learned Justices of The Court of Appeal erred in law and fact when they failed to put all the affidavit evidence on record in respect of incompetency of the appeal to clear scrutiny and analysis.
  5. All the learned Justices of The Court of Appeal erred in law when they failed to determine the Grounds of Affirmation of the decision of the Judge in addition to those given by her filed by the appellant on 23rd August 2017.
  6. All the learned Justices of The Court of Appeal erred in law when they failed to make a decision on the consent/concession entered by counsel for the respondent before the High Court, to avail the documents.
  7. All the learned Justices of the Court of Appeal erred in law in failing to determine ground 2 of the appeal.
  8. In the alternative to the above, all the learned Justices of the Court of Appeal erred in law in finding that it was not necessary to determine ground 2 of the appeal after determining grounds 3, 4 & 5.
  9. All the learned Justices of The Court of Appeal erred in law and fact when they failed to determine the matter of costs in relation to Court of Appeal Civil Applications No. 144 & 145 of 2017 (THE KABAKA OF BUGANDA V. MALE H. MABIRIZI K. KIWANUKA) which was referred to them by Kasule, JA vide an order dated 9th May 2018.

PART III: GROUNDS RELATING TO INCOMPETENCY OF THE 

APPEAL-COURT OF APPEAL CIVIL APPLICATIONS

  1. 231 & 271 OF 2017.

The grounds under this part and in other parts related to the grounds in this part are Without Prejudice to the point that the majority justices did not agree with the minority opinions of His Lordship Egonda-Ntende, JA in respect of Court of Appeal Civil Applications No. 231 & 271 of 2017-relating to incompetency of the appeal hence deciding that the appeal was incompetent.

  1. The majority justices of the Court of Appeal (Their Lordships Hellen Obura & Ezekiel Muhanguzi, JJA) erred in law and fact in failing to give a clear order that the appeal was incompetently before court after not agreeing with His Lordship Egonda-Ntende JA’s ruling that the appeal was competently before court.
  2. All the learned Justices of The Court of Appeal erred in law and fact when they accepted the illegal and defective evidence of the respondent in Court of Appeal Civil Applications No. 231 & 271 of 2017 against the legal, valid and competent unrebutted evidence of the appellant.
  3. All the learned Justices of The Court of Appeal erred in law and fact in holding that the appellant did not fail to take essential steps in instituting the appeal.
  4. All the learned Justices of The Court of Appeal erred in law and fact when they accepted and relied upon the false affidavit of service by Baguma Cyrus in the face of contrary evidence on record.
  5. All the learned Justices of The Court of Appeal erred in law and fact in finding that the time between 5th June 2017 and 6th July 2017 was within the 30 days required to file a letter requesting for proceedings.
  6. All the learned Justices of The Court of Appeal erred in law and fact when they held that the time between 8th June 2017, when the Notice of Appeal was filed and 18th August 2017, when the appeal was filed, was within the 60 days limit in which to file an appeal.
  7. All the learned Justices of The Court of Appeal erred in law when they held that the Rules do not provide for the time within which a letter requesting for proceedings should be served upon the opposite party.
  8. All the learned Justices of The Court of Appeal erred in law and fact in validating instructions to counsel for the respondent after finding that they were instructed by David F.K Mpanga, who is neither the respondent corporation sole nor his recognized agent.
  9. All the learned Justices of The Court of Appeal erred in law and fact in condoning an illegality by validating the illegal instructions to advocates.
  10. All the learned Justices of The Court of Appeal erred in law and fact when they held that the affidavit in reply to High Court Civil Division Misc. Application No. 41 of 2017 by Mukasa Twaha was valid.
  11. All the learned Justices of The Court of Appeal erred in law and fact when they, after holding that a corporation sole is one consisting of one person only, went ahead to validate instructions by David F.K Mpanga and an affidavit by Mukasa Twaha both of whom had no power of attorney from the respondent.
  12. All the learned Justices of The Court of Appeal erred in law when they relied on the repealed Rule 6 of The Court Fees, Fines and Deposits Rules.
  13. All the learned Justices of The Court of Appeal erred in law when they relied on Court Fees Rules instead of Section 75 of The Evidence Act.
  14. All the learned Justices of The Court of Appeal erred in law and fact when they treated failure to pay certification fees as the same as failure to pay court filing fees.
  15. All the learned Justices of The Court of Appeal erred in law and fact when they treated the none-payment of certification fees as payment of insufficient fees.
  16. All the learned Justices of The Court of Appeal erred in law and fact when they treated inconsistences in the purported Registrar’s Certificate with the evidence on record as minor mistakes.

 

PART IV: GROUNDS RELATING TO DECIDING MATTERS  

NOT ARISING OUT OF THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL,

              NOT DECIDED BY HIGH COURT, NOT SUPPORTED    

              BY PLEADINGS, EVIDENCE ON RECORD & ISSUES 

              FRAMED & NOT ARGUED BEFORE THE COURT.

  1. All the learned Justices of The Court of Appeal erred in law when they, after rightly stating that the appeal arose out of discovery proceedings, went ahead to deal with and determine matters outside the realm of discovery.
  2. All the learned Justices of The Court of Appeal erred in law when they deviated from the issues framed by the parties and proceeded upon their own voyage.
  3. Without prejudice to the point that the majority decision was that the appeal was incompetent, all the learned Justices of The Court of Appeal erred in law and fact in holding that the letter requesting for typed proceedings was filed within 30 days from the date of judgment which was not the pleading & evidence of the respondent.
  4. Without prejudice to the point that the majority decision was that the appeal was incompetent, all the learned Justices of The Court of Appeal erred in law and fact when they held that the appeal was filed within 60 days from the date of filing the Notice of Appeal which was not the pleading & evidence of the respondent.
  5. All the learned Justices of The Court of Appeal erred in law when they determined ground one of the appeal which did not emanate from the proceedings and decision in High Court Civil Division Misc. Application No. 41 of 2017.
  6. All the learned Justices of the Court of Appeal erred in law in transplanting the submissions in respect to ground 1 of the appeal, which failed, and applied them in resolution of grounds 3, 4 & 5 to find that the underlying suit is untenable, without first notifying parties hence derogating the appellant’s right to fair hearing.
  7. All the learned Justices of The Court of Appeal erred in law when they held that the respondent cannot be sued under Article 50 of The Constitution, him not being a government which did not arise out of the memorandum of appeal and not in issue.
  8. All the learned Justices of The Court of Appeal erred in law in going into the arena of public and private law rights which was not part of the memorandum of appeal and which was never argued before them.
  9. All the learned Justices of The Court of Appeal erred in law when they pre-empted the outcome of the High Court Civil Division Misc. Cause No. 162 of 2016, which was not before court and pending in the High Court.
  10. All the learned Justices of The Court of Appeal erred in law in declaring that the respondent is a landlord of the official mailo land and that the settlers are his tenants which question did not arise out of the grounds of appeal and which is pending in High Court.
  11. All the learned Justices of The Court of Appeal erred in law when they held that the respondent is representing himself and the people from Buganda tribe living on the official mailo land, which is not supported by the pleadings and did not arise out of the grounds of appeal.
  12. All the learned Justices of The Court of Appeal erred in law in holding that an application for discovery and inspection may only be necessary or reasonable in case the head suit is maintainable at law or at least arguable; which did not arise out of the grounds of appeal.
  13. All the learned Justices of The Court of Appeal erred in law in setting aside the entire ruling in High Court Civil Division Misc. Application No. 41 of 2017 yet the respondent only appealed against PART of the Ruling.
  14. All the learned Justices of The Court of Appeal erred in law in granting a prayer to dismiss the entire High Court Civil Division Misc. Application No. 41 of 2017 yet the respondent only appealed against PART of the Ruling.
  15. All the learned Justices of The Court of Appeal erred in law in awarding costs in the High Court to the respondent yet the order of costs is not among the orders for which leave to appeal was granted.
  16. All the learned Justices of appeal erred in law when they dismissed Misc. Application No. 41 of 2017 with costs yet the appellant did not appeal against the order of costs made by the judge.

PART V: GROUNDS RELATING TO FAILURE BY THE COURT 

OF APPEAL TO CARRYOUT ITS DUTY OF PROPER  

              APPLICATION OF THE LAW & THE RULES.

  1. All the learned Justices of the Court of Appeal erred in law when they, without striking out issues framed by parties, did not determine the cases before them on the basis of the framed issues.
  2. All the learned Justices of Appeal erred in law when they relied on the respondent’s record of appeal which was not certified as a true copy of the record at High Court.
  3. All the learned Justices of the Court of Appeal erred in law when they did not state the respective cases of the parties as presented and submitted to court.
  4. All the learned Justices of the Court of Appeal erred in law when they did not specify, in material particular, the evidence presented to court by each of the parties for the respective matters in issue.
  5. All the learned Justices of The Court of Appeal erred in law in declaring that the respondent is a landlord of the official mailo land and that the settlers are his tenants yet the respondent admitted that he holds the official mailo land in trust for the people of Buganda.
  6. All the learned Justices of The Court of Appeal erred in law in declaring that the respondent is a landlord of the official mailo land, yet he is a trustee, and that the settlers are his tenants, yet they are beneficiaries to the trust.
  7. All the learned Justices of the Court of Appeal erred in law in not acknowledging, commenting, analyzing and referring to the various authorities from within and outside Uganda which were referred to them by the appellant.
  8. All the learned Justices of the Court of Appeal erred in law in holding that the respondent cannot be sued under Article 50 of The Constitution, him not being a government.
  9. All the learned Justices of the Court of Appeal erred in law when they deviated from the principles contained in various Supreme Court decisions binding them.
  10. All the learned Justices of the Court of Appeal erred in law when they relied on per incuriam decisions which related to different facts while ignoring persuasive decisions which related to similar facts.
  11. All the learned Justices of the Court of Appeal erred in law when they deviated from binding and persuasive decisions relating to the principles of discovery.

PART VI: GROUNDS RELATING TO FAILURE BY THE COURT

OF APPEAL TO CARRYOUT ITS DUTY AS A FIRST 

         APPELLATE COURT.

  1. All the learned Justices of The Court of Appeal erred in law when they failed in their duty, as a first appellate court, to properly evaluate the pleadings, evidence and submissions and all the material before them and hence reached wrong conclusions in setting aside the Ruling of the Judge.
  2. All the learned Justices of The Court of Appeal erred in law when they highly contradicted themselves on the principles of discovery of documents.
  3. All the learned Justices of The Court of Appeal erred in law in relying on Order 1 Rule 8 of the Civil Procedure Rules in a matter instituted under Article 50 of the Constitution.
  4. In the alternative to the above, all the learned Justices of The Court of Appeal erred in law when they found that the underlying suit in the High Court is untenable on account of lack of authority from settlers on the official mailo land yet the appellant himself has a beneficial interest in official mailo land.

 

PART VII: GROUNDS RELATING TO MISAPPLICATION OF

THE PRINCIPLES OF DISCOVERY & 

             CONTRADICTIONS THEREIN.

  1. All the learned Justices of The Court of Appeal erred in law in holding that grounds 3, 4 and 5 of the appeal could be conveniently considered together, in isolation of and before determination of ground 2.
  2. All the learned Justices of The Court of Appeal erred in law when they did not dismiss the appeal upon finding that the respondent ignored the Notice to Produce Documents duly issued and served upon him.
  3. All the learned Justices of The Court of Appeal erred in law in deviating from the known principles of discovery of documents.
  4. All the learned Justices of The Court of Appeal erred in law in holding that an application for discovery and inspection may only be necessary or reasonable in case the head suit is maintainable at law or at least arguable.
  5. All the learned Justices of The Court of Appeal erred in law when they, after finding that Discovery is not necessarily limited to documents which would be admissible in evidence but to documents which advance an applicant’s case or damage the adversary’s case, held that the documents in issue could not be discovered.
  6. All the learned Justices of The Court of Appeal erred in law when he held that the discovery of the documents in issue will not save costs.
  7. All the learned Justices of the Court of Appeal erred in law in finding that the land in question was not specified yet they did not determine ground 2 of the appeal.
  8. All the learned Justices of The Court of Appeal erred in law in allowing ground 5 of the appeal without making a clear and elaborate analysis of the principles of discovery and without finding that the learned Judge deviated from the principles.

 

PART VIII:GROUNDS RELATING TO TAMPERING WITH THE

                     DISCRETION OF THE TRIAL JUDGE CONTRARY

                     TO THE GENERAL RULE.

  1. All the learned Justices of The Court of Appeal erred in law in tampering with the discretion of the Judge in circumstances where the learned Judge was clearly right and basing on matters which were not part of the grounds of appeal.
  2. All the learned Justices of The Court of Appeal erred in law in allowing ground 3 of the appeal without putting the discretionary finding of the judge on relevancy of the documents to a clear scrutiny and analysis.
  3. All the learned Justices of The Court of Appeal erred in law in allowing ground 4 of the appeal after agreeing with the appellant that Buganda Land Board is an agent of the respondent and without putting the discretionary finding of the judge on why the Bank statements had to be discovered to a proper and clear scrutiny and analysis.
  4. All the learned Justices of The Court of Appeal erred in law in overturning the discretionary finding of the Judge by holding that there is no connection between the Bank Accounts and the main cause, without any serious reasons given or showing that the Judge was clearly wrong.
  5. All the learned Justices of the Court of Appeal erred in law in going against the discretionary finding of the Judge that the land in question was specific without any reasoning and analysis to counter the judge’s finding.
  6. All the learned Justices of The Court of Appeal erred in law when they tampered with the discretion of the judge that the costs should abide the outcome of the main case without any valid reason for doing so.

PART IX: GROUNDS RELATING TO REMEDIES.

  1. All the learned Justices of the Court of Appeal erred in law in setting aside the decision of the judge yet the appellant conceded to avail the documents in issue.
  2. All the learned Justices of the Court of Appeal erred in law and fact in not awarding costs of Court of Appeal Civil Applications No. 144 & 145 of 2017 to the appellant.

PART X: GROUNDS RELATING TO UN-JUDICIOUS EXERCISE  

OF DISCRETION BY THE COURT OF APPEAL.

  1. Without prejudice to the point that the majority decision was that the appeal was incompetent, all the learned Justices of The Court of Appeal erred in law and fact when they un-judiciously exercised their discretion to order the appellant to pay the costs of Civil Applications No. 231 & 271 of 2017 after finding that the appellant was successful on several grounds raised.
  2. Without prejudice to the point that the majority decision was that the appeal was incompetent, all the learned Justices of The Court of Appeal erred in law and fact when they un-judiciously exercised their discretion to order the appellant to pay the costs of Civil Applications No. 231 & 271 of 2017 when the filing of the two applications was necessitated and prompted by actions and omissions of the respondent.
  3. All the learned Justices of The Court of Appeal erred in law when they un-judiciously exercised their discretion to order the appellant to pay costs of the appeal to the respondent after finding that the appellant was successful on several points raised in support of the trial judge.
  4. All the learned Justices of The Court of Appeal erred in law and fact when they un-judiciously exercised their discretion to order the appellant to pay the costs of Civil Appeal No. 184 of 2017 yet the filing of the High Court Misc. Application No. 41 of 2017 was necessitated and prompted by the respondent’s failure to respond to the Notice to produce documents.
  5. All the learned Justices of The Court of Appeal erred in law and fact when they un-judiciously exercised their discretion to order the appellant to pay the costs in the High Court yet the filing of the High Court Misc. Application No. 41 of 2017 was necessitated and prompted by the respondent’s failure to respond to the Notice to produce documents.

WHEREFORE, the appellant PRAYS for orders that:

  1. The Appeal be allowed.
  2. The ruling and judgment of the Court of Appeal be declared null, void and of no effect whatsoever.
  3. The Applications and the Appeal be remitted back to The Court of Appeal for a fresh expeditious hearing, before a different coram.
  4. The costs of this appeal and those in the Court of Appeal for the Appeal and all applications arising therefrom be paid by the respondent to the appellant.
  5. The appellant be granted general damages for inconveniences.
  6. An interest of 25% per annum be paid by the respondent on the above damages and costs.

IN THE ALTERNATIVE but without prejudice to the above, the appellant prays for orders that:

  1. This court be pleased to determine, in favour of the appellant, all the points and matters not determined by the Court of Appeal.
  2. This court determines and allows, in favour of the appellant, Court of Appeal Civil Applications No. 231 & 271 of 2017 as presented, with costs to the appellant.
  3. Court of Appeal Civil Appeal No. 184 of 2017 be struck out with costs to the appellant.
  4. In the alternative to striking out, this court determines and allows, with costs, the grounds of affirmation of the decision of the High Court Judge in addition to those she gave.
  5. In further alternative to striking out, Court of Appeal Civil Appeal No. 184 of 2017 be dismissed with costs to the appellant.
  6. The orders made by the Court of Appeal be substituted with the orders made by the High Court Judge.
  7. The costs in Court of Appeal Civil Applications No. 144 & 145 of 2017 be awarded to the appellant.
  8. The appellant be granted general damages for inconveniences.
  9. The costs of this appeal and in the court of appeal be paid by the respondent to the appellant.
  10. An interest of 25% per annum be paid by the respondent on the above damages and costs.

Dated at Kampala this…………..day of……………2018.

………………………………                                                                                              MALE H.MABIRIZI K.KIWANUKA.                                                                 APPELLANT

TO:

THE HON. JUSTICES OF THE SUPREME COURT OF UGANDA.

 

It is intended to serve copies of this memorandum on KALENGE, BWANIKA, SSAWA & CO. ADVOCATES, Plot 30, LUMUMBA AVENUE, KAMPALA.

Lodged in the Supreme Court Registry at Kololo-Kampala this ……..………day of……………………2018.

………………………                                                                                  REGISTRAR,

 SUPREME COURT OF UGANDA.

Drawn and filed by;                                                                                                                                                                                                   MALE H. MABIRIZI K. KIWANUKA,                                                                                                                                                                                     C/O Plot 39 Kampala Road, Shell Capital Building, 2nd Floor Suite 201

TEL: 0752 570 574/0787 263 086, Kampala.

 

By Jamil lutakome

Comments

CELEBRITY GOSSIP

Music Promoters Plan To Petition Speaker Over Bobiwine – Police Harrasmentent

Published

on

Bobiwine

Music promoters are set to petition the Speaker of Parliament Rebecca Kadaga protesting the move by police to block all Bobi Wine’s concerts during the festive season

According to Kyadondo East MP also known as Bobi Wine, police banned all his planned concert without a clear explanation. Promoters under their umbrella Uganda Music Promoters and Venue Owners’ Network notified the speaker about the petition to be presented tomorrow.
Speaking to media, the association’s coordinator Tony Ssempijja said they are meeting today to finalize their arrangements.

Ssempijja further add as that police’s ban on Bobi concerts is likely to force promoters, venue owners and musicians out of the business and this comes after police blocked Bobi Wine’s concert in Jinja over the weekend.

Comments

Continue Reading

CRIME

Three Killed In Mukono Robbery Shoot-Out

Published

on

Three suspected robbers have been killed in a shoot-out with security guards at Biyinzika Poultry farm in Mukono District, the Grapevine has learnt.

About 10 men armed with one riffle raided Biyinzika Poultry farm at on 16th December 2018 at about 0200 hours and attempted to steal chicken.

In the process of the robbery, there was exchange of fire with the guards at the farm hence killing three suspected robbers. One has been identified as James Adrey of Ngora District.

The Spokesperson Kampala Metropolitan Police Luke Owoyesigyire said that other two bodies have not been identified and were therefore taken to Mulago National Referral Hospital for postmortem.

“We also recovered chicken in sacks at the scene of crime and the hunt is still on for the rest of the team that is suspected to have been involved in this foiled robbery,” he said.

Investigations are ongoing via Mukono Police vide SD 02/16/12/2018.

By Remmy Atugonza

Comments

Continue Reading

NEWS

BodaBoda 2010 Patron Kitata Has A case To Answer.

Published

on

BodaBoda 2010 patron Abudallah Kitata (in yellow) listen to court proceedings in Makindye

 

Boda Boda 2010 Association Patron Mr. Abudallah Kitatta and 9 of his co-accused have this afternoon been requested to prepare their defence against charges of unlawful possession of firearms and military equipment, the Grapevine has learnt

Mr. Kitatta and his co-accused appeared before a seven-member panel led by Lt. Gen Andrew Gutti this afternoon and were told that testimonies from different witnesses had pinned them and therefore had a case to answer. However, three of Kitatta’s co-accused who included Jonathan Kayondo, Hassan Ssengoba and Sunday Ssemogerere were acquitted because none of them was found at Boda Boda 2010 association offices in Nateete at the time of their arrest and Court further said Ngobi Sowali and Ibrahim Sekajja were in the car that had firearms at Vine Hotel while Amon Twinomujuni, Matia Ssenfuka, Hassan Sebatta, John Sebandeke, Hussein Mugema, Fred Bwanika have a case to answer because they were found at Boda Boda 2010 association offices in Nateete during arrest, according to the testimonies of the witnesses.

Bodaboda 2010 boss Mr Abdulah Kitata was arrested on Saturday 20th of January 2018, after two of his members confessed to CMI that they had participated in the gruesome killing of Case Clinic Accountant, Francis Ekalungar. However the security agency CMI delayed to reveal Kitata whereabout until on the 29th of January when he was first tried in the General Court martial

By Remmy Atugonza

Comments

Continue Reading

like us

TRENDING

error: Content is protected !!