Ham Vs DTB Supreme Court Judgment Unconstitutional

A New Twist in the HAM vs DTB case is up again as Hamis Kiggundu alias Ham petitions the constitutional court challenging the outcome of the judgement of Supreme Court for being Unconstitutional and in contravention of several provisions of the constitution of the Republic of Uganda.

Not long ago the country witnessed drama at the Supreme Court when Ham and his lawyers protested the scheduled date for receipt of judgement in their Appeal which they termed as a move to deny Ham his constitutional rights of being heard, Ham went ahead and filed an application to arrest/halt the delivery of the said decision, however the same was of no effect as the Supreme Court Hon Lady justice Percy Night Tuhaise went ahead and delivered the said judgement amidst protest from learned counsel Kagolo who represented Ham as Counsel Muwema was unavailable.

Counsel Kagolo went ahead and gave several reasons including but not limited to the fact that they had been invited for a pre-conference hearing which didn’t take effect but rather a date for delivery of judgement was given, the failure of the Registrar of the Supreme Court fixing their application despite having been filed in 2021 and further that they had filed an application to arrest the judgement at hand pending the hearing of their application.

These arguments were rebutted by Counsel Karugire as he stated that the said application was a waste of time as some of the questions therein would be handled in the said judgement and the matter had taken long and secondly that the application to arrest the judgment had been fixed nor heard.

Hon Lady justice Percy Night Tuhaise went ahead and delivered the judgement whereafter she gave a disclaimer for her decision to proceed with delivering the said controversial judgment which would have been delivered by any other judicial officer or the registrar of the Supreme Court.

In light of all the said controversies, Ham has gone ahead and filed a Constitutional Petition stating several provisions of the constitution which were violated as a result of the Supreme Court going ahead and delivering the controversial judgement namely Articles 21,2,20,28,44,126,and 128 among others.

Ham’s petition put across several grounds under which he intends to challenge the controversial judgment as below;

To begin with, is in relation to the act and/or conduct of the supreme court of allowing DTB to introduce extrinsic matters on syndicated loans leading to the consideration and judgment upon such matters not being the subject of Civil Appeal No. 13/2021 or any cross-appeal, was an injudicious and biased act done contrary to and in contravention of Article 2, 20, 21, 28, 44, 126 and 128 of the Constitution, the act or conduct of the supreme court to scheduling a pre-hearing of civil Application No. 051/2021 which was an application for judgment on admission and then declining to pre-near the said application, was an injudicious and biased act which infringed the Petitioners inviolable right to a fair hearing contrary to and in contravention of Articles 2, 20,21, 28, 44, 126 and 128 of the Constitution.

Secondly, the act and/or conduct of the Supreme Court of receiving and declining to hear civil Application No. 15/2023 to introduce additional evidence from the central Bank of Kenya indicating that DTB Kenya had committed illegalities in respect of the credit transaction with Ham was an improper and

Inappropriate exercise or judIcial power and thereby infringed the inviolable right to a fair hearing contrary to Articles 2, 20, 21, 28, 44, 126 and 128 of the Constitution.

Thirdly is the act or conduct of issuing the lead judgement in Civil Appeal No. 13/2021 on the 6th June 2023, whilst claiming that “the other members of the coram were in full agreement” whereas they were not at that material time, the chief Justice Alfonse Owiny Dollo committed perjury which fainted and invalidated the judicial process of writing the judgment, renders the impugned judgment suspect, hull void and inconsistent with Articles 2, 28, 44, 126, 128, 130 and 131 of the Constitution.

Furthermore is the act or conduct of the supreme court of violating the panel mandate rule to hear and judge upon civil appeal No.13/2021 at the same time, when It issued the impugned judgement with two commencement dates i.e on June 2023 and 13 June 2023, was an absolute tallure of exercise of judicial power which invalidated the impugned judgement and is inconsistent with Articles 2, 28, 44, 126, 131 and 132 of the constitution.

Also to note is the act or conduct of the supreme court declaring that foreign lending by foreign banks should be free and unregulated in Uganda, usurps the power of Parliament to legislate against illicit money transactions, is an improper and inappropriate exercise of judicial authority and is  a craw back on the public policy of Uganda which is inconsistent with and is in contravention of Articles 2, 28, 44, 19, 123 and 126 of the Constitution.

Lastly is the act or conduct of issuing a post judgement statement Titled “Reasons why I declined to halt delivery of judgement” which was signed and delivered by Hon Lady justice  Percy Night Tuhaise on the 29th June 2023 amounted to a disclaimer of responsibility casting aspersions on the integrity of the whole judgement making process in civil appeal No 13/2021, rendering the said process a nullity and in contravention of Articles 2, 28, 44, 126 and 128 of the Constitution.

We now await to see how events unfold over the said petition and how the justices of the constitutional court will address the several concerns in relation to the bluntant violation of human rights.