UK Based Ugandan Lawyer Loses Fraud Case Against Facebook Lover

The High Court in Kampala has dismissed a lawsuit filed by Peter Ziruntusa, a UK-based Ugandan lawyer, also known as Peter Campbell, against Meribel Resty Mbabazi, his former romantic partner whom he met on Facebook. Ziruntusa had accused Mbabazi of breaching trust and defrauding him of more than UGX 422 million, which he claimed was sent for investment purposes.

Ziruntusa testified before Justice Musa Ssekaana of the High Court Civil Division, stating that he has been an immigration lawyer in the UK since 2004 and that he met Mbabazi on Facebook in November 2015. According to the evidence presented, Ziruntusa said that their romantic relationship led him to send substantial amounts of money to Mbabazi, intended for investments in real estate, farming, and fishing in Uganda. He alleged that these funds were sent via mobile money services through Send Wave, MT, Salabed in the UK, and other channels, with Mbabazi responsible for managing their projects as per an oral agreement.

However, in her defense, Mbabazi refuted the claims, asking the court to dismiss the case. She argued that the money was sent as "family support" and gifts during their romantic relationship, which began in 2015. She detailed their relationship, noting frequent visits to Uganda, where they stayed together at several hotels and her home in Mbalala, Mukono. Mbabazi, who was sued alongside three others, denied any business partnership or investment agreement with Ziruntusa.

The other respondents in the case included Desire Mwesigwa Lutabaire, Johnson Asaba Byaruhanga (also known as Faisal Waisswa), and Jackson Musitwa Mugwanya. They also denied entering any oral agreements with Ziruntusa, apart from a proposed partnership to construct a medical center in Mukono. This project, according to their testimonies, was to be funded by Ziruntusa for a 40% stake, but they claim he failed to fulfill his financial commitments.

In his ruling on October 11, 2024, Justice Ssekaana dismissed Ziruntusa’s claims of breach of trust, fraud, and contractual obligations. He concluded that the relationship between Ziruntusa and Mbabazi was primarily romantic rather than commercial.

"The plaintiff/Ziruntusa was using ‘a sugarcane as a walking stick’ and failed to separate the romance from investment/business, and this court cannot come to his aid to convert his romantic pleasures and ‘pillow talk’ into contractual obligations. If his intention was strictly about investment in Uganda, then he ought to have kept in that lane instead of crossing lanes midway," stated Justice Ssekaana.

Justice Ssekaana found Ziruntusa's evidence unreliable and lacking credibility, noting that there was insufficient proof of a contractual relationship or constructive trust. 

"The court is not persuaded by the plaintiff’s uncorroborated evidence that he was singly investing through the 1st defendant/Mbabazi. The money sent in a romantic relationship should be clearly defined with the purpose before it is alleged to be a contractual relationship without any proof. It is plausible that the plaintiff/Ziruntusa had intended to benefit the 1st defendant/Mbabazi with money sent partly as gifts or donations for her philanthropic activities in order to facilitate their intimate relationship," the judge remarked.

The judge emphasized that unmarried cohabitants are not entitled to recover money contributed during such relationships unless there is clear joint ownership, such as through registration or a joint bank account. 

"The plaintiff/Ziruntusa has failed to prove his claims for recovery of the money sent to the 1st defendant/Mbabazi under unclear circumstances. Unmarried or cohabitants have no right to recovery of money made or contributed in such a relationship unless it is jointly owned by registration or joint bank account or such other ownership which infers clear joint ownership," Justice Ssekaana held.

Mbabazi testified that Ziruntusa had introduced himself as a passionate immigration lawyer interested in protecting vulnerable children and that her philanthropic activities were shared with him. She claimed that the financial support from Ziruntusa was intended to strengthen their intimate relationship rather than serve as investment capital.

Ultimately, the court ruled that Ziruntusa was not entitled to any damages or remedies, citing a lack of evidence to support his claims. Justice Ssekaana ordered both parties to bear their own costs due to the unique circumstances of the case, aiming to prevent an escalation of the dispute or further tensions from a jilted relationship.