Warning: Trying to access array offset on value of type bool in /usr/www/users/urnnet/a/story.php on line 43
Court Upholds Decision Ordering Counsel Nangumya to Refund Client’s Cash :: Uganda Radionetwork
Breaking

Court Upholds Decision Ordering Counsel Nangumya to Refund Client’s Cash

Top story
However, they found that directing the Law Council to disbar Nangumya and strike his name from the roll for future crimes involving clients' money was unconstitutional as it infringed on the right to a fair hearing.
Lady Justice Eva Luswata
The Constitutional Court has upheld a decision requiring Lawyer Geoffrey Nangumya to refund 59.9 million Shillings to his client. The decision was made by Justices Fredrick Egonda-Ntende, Catherine Bamugemereire, Monica Mugenyi, Eva Luswata, and Oscar Kihika on Monday. They partly upheld a ruling issued by three High Court Judges in June 2020.   

The issue began when Emmy Tumwine purchased two acres of land from Israel Bbosa Sserunkuma and Wilberforce Kiyingi for Shillings 76 million on May 15th, 2013. Tumwine paid Shillings 50 million upfront, with the remainder to be paid upon completion of a land registry search. When the land purchase fell through, Tumwine enlisted Nangumya to recover the money. 

Nangumya initiated a civil suit against the landowners in 2014. However, Tumwine later replaced Nangumya with lawyers from M/s. Muhumuza-Kiiza Advocates and legal consultants. It was discovered that Nangumya had recovered 63 million shillings without informing Tumwine. This led to Tumwine filing a complaint against Nangumya before the Law Council.

Nangumya defended himself by stating that he hadn't handed over the money because Tumwine hadn't paid for legal services. The Law Council found Nangumya guilty of professional misconduct and ordered him to refund 59.9 million shillings to Tumwine, suspending him from practice for two years.   

Nangumya appealed to the High Court, but the ruling was upheld, leading him to petition the Constitutional Court in 2021. The Constitutional Court, in its decision, agreed partly with Tumwine and partly with the High Court Judges. They ruled that the proceedings in the Law Council's Disciplinary Committee and the High Court did not require interpretation by the Constitutional Court. 

“Having found that the petitioner has no property rights in the money recovered other than his duly taxed professional fees, a claim under Article 26(1) would be unsustainable. Similarly, his right to practice his profession under Article 40(2) would not be negated by the order to return the money that did not belong to him. I therefore find that the decision of the High Court about the proceedings before the Committee required no interpretation of the Constitutional Court,” said Luswata who wrote the decision.    

However, they found that directing the Law Council to disbar Nangumya and strike his name from the roll for future crimes involving clients' money was unconstitutional as it infringed on the right to a fair hearing. This is not the first time Nangumya has faced suspension from practice. In 2009, he was suspended for six months following allegations of gross misconduct related to the repossession of a bus belonging to Horizon coaches.

Support us


Images 1

Keywords