Rédaction Africa Links 24 with The Observer
Published on 2024-03-26 16:16:31
The Constitutional court has recently made a decision to uphold a ruling that requires city lawyer Geoffrey Nangumya to refund Shs 59.9 million to his client. This decision was made by justices Fredrick Egonda-Ntende, Catherine Bamugemereire, Monica Mugenyi, Eva Luswata, and Oscar Kihika on Monday. The ruling partially upheld a decision issued by three High court judges in June 2020.
The case at hand involved Emmy Tumwine, who had purchased two acres of land from Israel Bbosa Sserunkuma and Wilberforce Kiyingi for a total of Shs 76 million on May 15, 2013. Tumwine paid Shs 50 million upfront, with the remaining amount to be paid upon completion of a land registry search. However, when the land purchase deal fell through, Tumwine sought the assistance of Nangumya to recover the money.
Nangumya initiated a civil suit against the landowners in 2014, but Tumwine later replaced him with lawyers from M/s. Muhumuza-Kiiza Advocates and Legal Consultants. It was later discovered that Nangumya had recovered Shs 63 million without informing Tumwine, which led to Tumwine filing a complaint against Nangumya before the Law Council.
Nangumya defended himself by claiming that he had not handed over the money because Tumwine had not paid for legal services. However, the Law Council found Nangumya guilty of professional misconduct and ordered him to refund Shs 59.9 million to Tumwine, as well as suspending him from practice for two years.
Despite appealing to the High court, Nangumya’s suspension was upheld, prompting him to take the case to the Constitutional court in 2021. The Constitutional court, in its decision, sided partly with Tumwine and partly with the High court. They concluded that the proceedings in the Law Council’s disciplinary committee and the High court did not necessitate interpretation by the Constitutional court.
Luswata, who wrote the decision, stated, “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.” The court also 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 due to allegations of gross misconduct related to the repossession of a bus belonging to Horizon Coaches.
Overall, the Constitutional court’s decision to uphold the ruling requiring Nangumya to refund the money to his client reflects the importance of upholding ethical standards in the legal profession and ensuring that client’s interests are protected.
Read Original article on The Observer
