MP Obua: I owe no one any money

By Andante Okanya and Barbara Kabahumuza

Ajuri County MP Denis Hamson Obua, has said he owes no one any money, refuting a report that the Commercial Court has ordered him to pay sh401m to a businessman Jain Amit.

On Saturday, MP Obua clarified on a media report 'Court orders Obua to pay sh400m in debt.' 

"I don't owe anybody even one cent. I only acted as a guarantor," Obua stated.

New Vision has since established from court documents that Obua does not owe Amit any money but only acted as a guarantor. There was no such order by the court.

The money in question is an accumulated amount whose initial principal was sh168m, borrowed by a one Abdu Olal Agasaki on January 4, 2013.

The case arose this year on March 4, when Amit filed a civil suit at the court through Pearl Advocates and Solicitors.

The plaint states that the 10% interest was agreed upon on January 20, 2014.Court documents further show that as security, Agasaki deposited a certificate of land title for FRV 515, Folio 6, Erute Block 7, Block 790 registered in his name.

Amit purports that both defendants are jointly and severally liable and have no valid defence to the suit claim. The businessman claims by the time of filing the case, Agasaki had only paid sh35m.

But in defence, the duo argues that Amit only advanced sh50m, with sh30m as the interest.

On July 8, Justice Henry Adonyo made a ruling to an application filed by Obua where he sought court permission to appear and defend himself so as to prevent entering of a default judgment.

 The judge declined to dismiss the application as demanded by Amit, who had contended that the Agasaki and the MP had not honoured court appearances when the case was scheduled for hearing.

Amit's lawyers also argued that Obua had not served the application to the clients as required by the court.

But the judge noted that the application raised substantial issues of law and fact, and that the dispute can only be resolved when court hears the case in its entirety to the logical conclusion.

"The justice of this matter as can be seen from the very pleadings both in this application and in the head suit requires that proper investigation of the dispute therein is made by this court in order for the court to finally determine the rights of the parties," the ruling reads in part.

Accordingly, hearing was fixed for August 25.