Warning: Trying to access array offset on value of type bool in /usr/www/users/urnnet/a/story.php on line 43 Sudhir Secures Permanent Injunction Against Sebalu and Lule Advocates :: Uganda Radionetwork
Sudhir ran to court in 2017 seeking orders stopping Sebalu and Lule Advocates from representing DFCU bank citing conflict of Interest in a matter involving the defunct Crane Bank.
Deprecated: trim(): Passing null to parameter #1 ($string) of type string is deprecated in /usr/www/users/urnnet/a/story.php on line 663
City Businessman Sudhir Ruparelia has won his
case against Sebalu and Lule Advocates.
Sudhir ran to court in 2017 seeking orders
stopping Sebalu and Lule Advocates from representing DFCU bank citing conflict of Interest
in a matter involving the defunct Crane Bank.
Sudhir argued that it would be unfair for Sebalu
and Lule Advocates to represent his rivals after working for him.
The business
is demanding rent arrears of Shillings 2.9 billion and US$ 385,728.44
for using the premises formerly occupied by Crane Bank.
According to suit, when DFCU took over the assets and
liabilities of Crane Bank upon its closure in 2016, it also occupied the said
rented properties for which Crane Management Services are seeking is rent
arrears.
DFCU hired a team of lawyers from Ssebalu and Lule advocates including
James Sebugenyi Mukasa to represent them.
Sudhir rose up in protest saying the law firm, saying
the same firm had represented Meera Investments Limited, which is part of the
Ruparelia Company that belongs to him since 2012.
Now, this morning, Festo Ngenga,
the Commercial Court registrar ruled in Sudhir’s favor.
He issued a permanent injunction
stopping Ssebalu and Lule advocates from participating in any case involving Ruparelia
Group.
“I found that the first respondent (Sebalu and Lule Advocates) Is in possession of privileged and confidential information that came into his possession by virtue of being counsel to the applicant (Sudhir under Crane management Services) The information is relevant and current and relates to the matters in High Court Case Suit No. 109 of 2018 involving the applicant. The first respondent is therefore conflicted and cannot ably represent the second. I accordingly grant an injunction stopping the first Respondent from acting as counsel for the second respondent in this case” reads part of the ruling
The respondents would pay the costs of this application
Sudhir welcomed the court ruling, saying he had
written to court several times pointing out the issue of his former work
relationship with the firm.
//Cue in: "It is a..."
Cue out: "...these firms anymore"//
Sebalu and Lule Advocates has not yet responded
to the court ruling as none of the officials could be reached by the time of
filing story.