Judge To Rule On shs14bn Pride Uganda Case


drug geneva; font-size: small;”>The Government and Pride Microfinance Limited are accused of acquiring shares from Pride Uganda (which later metamorphosed into PML) of which they failed to pay.

Header advertisement

Several witnesses appeared before court with the recently concluded hearing where Monica Mugyenyi, a judge at the High court and the Norwegian Ambassador testified in a closed court session standing in for the defence side in the months of April.

The defendants also presented Chris Kassami the former Permanent Secretary Ministry Of Finance and Patrick Ocailap who was a government nominee on the Board of Directors PAU on 19th Feb, 2013.

The plaintiff presented Moses Aldrin Kimuli, Grace Musoke Lwanga, Jonathan Campaigne and an official from Pride Microfinance who also appeared in the closed court in April.

The defendants are represented Kasirye, Byaruhanga & Company Advocates while the plaintiffs are represented by Byenkya Kihika & Company Advocates.

The Government might lose Shs 14bn if it fails to win the case.

According to Pride Uganda’s lawyer Byenkya Kihika, Government of Uganda represented by the Ministry of Finance deprived his client of its property – 9,795,918 shares without fair compensation.

They say on the advice of Bank of Uganda by letter dated 16th June 2005, the government acquired the said shares from the plaintiff and the share transfers provided that consideration for the shares be determined.

The plaintiff claims government has never sat down with them to determine the consideration as agreed and the shares are worth Shs 14,694,877,700 of which the government has failed to pay.

The Defendant’s lawyers, however, argue that the plaintiff (Pride Uganda) was a successor company to a wholly government microfinance project funded by the government of Norway and Austria run by Pride Africa which was beneficially owned by the government of Uganda..

Upon its incorporation, it assumed all the functions of the said Pride Africa and all the funds that constituted the plaintiff’s microfinance business were grants for the benefit of the government.

The defendants argue that the plaintiff avers that the Board of Directors of the Plaintiff Company committed fraudulent acts and abused the trust granted to it by the government in the process of incorporating PML, therefore the plaintiff is not titled to any payment as alleged in the plaint.


Header advertisement
To Top