KAMPALA – Two lawyers have dragged Uganda Law Society (ULS), their professional body that brings them together to court for allegedly subscribing as a member of International Centre for Arbitration and Mediation in Kampala (ICAMK).
Mr. Nelson Walusimbi and Mr. Andrew Wambi, in their court documents before the High Court in Kampala, aver that by subscribing to the membership of the 2nd defendant (ICAMK), the 1st defendant (ULS) committed its membership to bear of liability against the express restrictions of its mother statute.
The duo states that on July 26, 2018, the 2nd defendant a company limited by guarantee was incorporated by the Uganda Registration of Services Bureau and registered under registration number 80020001146801.
Among the subscribers to the memorandum and articles of association of the 2nd defendant is the 1st defendant and the Uganda Banker’s Association and its principal objective is to establish and provide an alternative dispute resolution judicial services in Uganda
“By its subscription as a member to the 2nd defendant, the 1st defendant is modifying its statutory mandate to circumvent the limits imposed on it by statute and to aid private profit initiatives against the general public of Uganda,” the lawyers narrate in the court documents.
“The acts of the 1st defendant amount to divestiture from itself of its role and duty to the public thereby its subscription is incompatible with the exercise of its role and its duty to the public and to the government as provided for by statute,” the lawyers further narrates.
They go on to state that the 1st defendant’s subscription and or formation of a company limited by guarantee is illegal and that notwithstanding the use its seal in any of the activities of the 2nd defendant to which it (1st defendant) is not bound by any incidental transactions or deeds.
“The plaintiffs (two lawyers) state that neither the membership of the Uganda Law Society nor Uganda Law Society Council can or could by consensus and or consent modify or waive the restrictions imposed on the 1st defendant by the statute,” the reads in part court documents.
The two lawyers goes on to say that the objects of the 2nd defendant as they relate to the administration and dispensation of justice by a private company are unconstitutional and thereby illegal.
They further say that the defendants were notified by the 1st plaintiff (Mr Walusimbi) of the intention to seek legal redress against them for the impugned acts.
The particulars of the illegalities of the defendants included; engaging in acts and promoting acts with a view to set up a judicial system and practice contrary to the constitution.
Others are engaging in the acts and promoting acts against its statutory mandate, acts that are vires the purview of its statutory foundation and acts with a view to set up a judicial system and practice contrary to the Constitution and laws.
Through their lawyers of Godfrey S. Lule & Co Advocates and Walusimbi & Co Advocates, the two lawyers are seeking a declaration that the 1st defendant acted outside its statutory mandate and thereby acted illegally in subscribing as a member to the 2nd defendant.
They also want court to order that the defendants’ agenda of setting up an alternative dispute resolution judicial practice and administration that is parallel to one established by the government through statute(s) for public utility and satisfaction is illegal.
They also want costs of the suit and a declaration that the administration and dispensation of justice is by virtue of the constitution, a preserve of the government and therefore a private entity such as the 2nd defendant is prohibited by the law from setting up a parallel and competing system of justice and judicial administration from that which is engendered by the state.