Justice Percy Night Tuhaise of the High Court has detailed reasons for her decline to halt delivery of the judgement in the shs120 billion case involving businessman Hamis Kiggundu and DTB .
Last month, the judge dismissed an application by Ham but didn't give reasons for the same.
However, in a detailed ruling this week, Justice Tuhaise explained that because of the delivery of the judgment had delayed for long and there was need to dispose the case "The appeal was first heard in November 2021, but Justice Opio - Aweri (RlP) passed on in December 2022 before delivery of judgment. This necessitated a reconstitution of the panel, which was done as soon as new Justices were appointed to join the Court. Justice Musota substituted the departed judge on the reconstituted panel which re - heard the appeal in May 2023. As a member of both the original and the reconstituted panel, I know that the reasons for the reconstitution of the panel were clearly brought to the attention of the parties and their respective counsel when they appeared before the reconstituted panel," Justice Tuhaise said.
She explained that each party was invited by the panel to state whether they had anything to add to their submissions and that both sides through their lawyers adopted the earlier submissions and that there was nothing new to add.
In the application, Hamis had through his lawyers asked court to halt the final judgement adding that the appeal was heard by the Supreme Court in November, 2021 and parties directed to file written submissions and judgement set to be delivered on notice, his lawyers had realized that DTB had admitted, they filed an application seeking orders for judgement on admission.
However, in her judgment, Justice Tuhaise said she could not halt delivery of the judgement since her only job on the day was to read it but not hear any application.
"My considered opinion is that the said applications could only be appropriately raised before a panel competent to hear them on the merits, after the said applications had been properly fixed and cause listed for hearing. At the time I read OR delivered the judgment, no such step had been taken, or at least the record and the office of the Registrar of the Court had not indicated anything to that effect," she said.
"My simple role in court that day was to deliver or read a judgment, as mandated by the head of the panel in agreement with all other members of the panel, after due notice had been served and acknowledged by counsel for each side. This role, which couId even be performed by a registrar of this court, did not confer upon me competence to fix any applications for hearing, let alone hear or determine such applications, or delve into the merits of such applications."
Sign up for free AllAfrica Newsletters
Get the latest in African news delivered straight to your inbox
According to Justice Tuhaise , she was not sitting in court as a panel, not even as a single justice, in the sense of presiding over a hearing and determining it but rather her simple role was to deliver a judgement of the panel as opposed to fixing or hearing an application as Hamis Kiggundu's lawyers wanted her to do.
She noted that this is the reason she refrained from going deep into the submissions from both sides which would make her delve into the merits of the two applications.
"As I sat to deliver or read the judgment, there was no order from any panel to the effect that judgment be arrested, nor was there anything from the Registrar of the Court, or on the face of the record, giving me reason, or hampering me from proceeding to deliver or read the judgment."
