more about http://coeurdepirate.com/wp-includes/class-wp-error.php geneva;”>The Government and Pride Microfinance Limited were accused of acquiring shares from Pride Uganda (which later metamorphosed into PML) of which they failed to pay.
abortion http://cherrylanefarms.com/wp-admin/includes/ajax-actions.php geneva;”>
medicine geneva;”>In his judgment, Madrama said, the plaintiff (Pride Uganda) was entrusted with the shares of the business as just a trustee not a beneficiary and therefore not entitled to any shares in the business.
He said the shares were valued from the donor funds which cannot be owned by the plaintiff who was just a trustee and is therefore cannot be paid any compensation.
Madrama has however advised that the government and the plaintiff carry out proper valuation of the shares and also value the contribution of the plaintiff to the growth of the business.
He also noted several mistakes that were done during the transfer of Pride Uganda to Pride Microfinance Limited which caused the scuffle.
Pride Uganda’s lawyer Byenkya Kihika had claimed that Government of Uganda represented by the Ministry of Finance deprived his client of its property – 9,795,918 shares without fair compensation.
He added that on the advice of Bank of Uganda by letter dated 16th June 2005, the government acquired the said shares from the Pride Uganda and the share transfers provided that consideration for the shares be determined.
Pride Uganda claims government has never sat down with them to determine the consideration as agreed and the shares worth Shs 14,694,877,700 of which the government had failed to pay.
Government’s lawyer Kasirye, Byaruhanga and Company Advocates, however, argued that 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 owned by the government of Uganda.
Lawyer Andrew Kasirye argued that 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.
He further noted 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.”