The High Court- Commercial Division has Wednesday dismissed an application filed by businessman Patrick Bitature in which he sought to block Vantage Capital, a South African money lending institution from selling his properties in Uganda to recover $34 million.
On Wednesday 18th May, 2022 an advert appeared in print media indicating that lawyers acting on the instructions of M/s Vantage Mezzanine Fund II Partnership had put on sale by public auction, multiple properties belonging to Mr Bitature.
The properties include; “Elizabeth Apartments” at Kololo in Kampala, “Protea Hotel-Naguru (Sky’s Hotel) in Kampala, and “Moyo Close Apartments,” Kololo gardens in Kampala.
The auction sought to recover $34 million an overdue debt which Bitature owes Vantage Capital.
The tycoon in a detailed statement issued a few days ago, acknowledged borrowing $10 million in 2014 and explained that his failure to service the loan was as a result of Covid-19 pandemic and delayed oil production in Uganda.
However, through his lawyers Muwema and Co. Advocates, Bitature sued Vantage legal advisors, Robert Kirunda, Noah Shamah wasige, Festus Kateregga and Commissioner Land Registration in a bid to block the sale of his properties.
In his ruling on Wednesday, Justice Stephen Mubiru dismissed the application with costs.
“In the result, I found that a prima facie case had not been established. There were no serious questions of law and fact to be tried by this court to justify the grant of a temporary injunction,” he ruled.
“The application was thus dismissed with costs to the respondents and the underlying suit was struck out with costs to the defendants,” he added.
“On basis of all the foregoing considerations, I found that this application and the underlying suit were entirely misconceived on account of the fact that they were instituted against agents of a 15 known principal, and on ground that the matters placed in issue in the suit are already the subject of a subsisting arbitral process.”
“This court had on two occasions before already declared that it will not exercise jurisdiction over the matter in light of the submission to arbitration that is valid, binding, operative and enforceable. I found it unnecessary in the circumstances to consider the rest of the criteria for the grant of a temporary injunction.”
