The Judiciary has condemned what it has called acts of lawlessness that were witnessed at the Supreme Court on Thursday during the session to fix hearing dates for the applications in the case of Ham Enterprises Ltd and 2 Others versus Diamond Trust Bank (u) Ltd & Another, Misc.

It has also condemned the unwarranted attack on the person of the Chief Justice and urged the public to avoid engaging in acts that bring about disorder while in the precincts of courts.

“Consequently, acts of lawlessness while appearing before courts or within court premises should be avoided and those found acting contrary shall be dealt with in accordance with the law,” it says.

In a statement released on Thursday evening, Judiciary said: “Acts of lawlessness at court premises shall not be entertained, our attention has been drawn to scenes that played out today at the Supreme Court where one of the parties in a court matter stormed out of the Court during a pre-hearing session for Civil applications”.

The statement says the purpose of the session was to fix hearing dates for the applications, determine the format for the presentation of arguments and draw timelines for filing written submissions.

“However, at the time of giving directions by the presiding Justice in the Ham Enterprises Ltd and 2 Others versus Diamond Trust Bank (u) Ltd & Another, Misc. App. No. 51/2021, the representative of Ham Enterprises Ltd became rowdy leading to commotion at the Court, nearly disrupting court proceedings.”

The Judiciary noted that their, “mandate is to administer justice to all, irrespective of social status, in accordance with the law, and in doing so, we act independently and are not subject to the control or direction of any person or authority. It thus goes without saying that no person and or authority shall interfere with the courts or judicial officers in the execution of their mandate”.

It has, therefore, urged the parties to matters before the courts to exercise patience and restraint and accept to be guided by the courts.

"If dissatisfied with the directives or orders of courts, parties should follow the laid down procedures and have their concerns appropriately addressed, through the right fora," the statement reads.

Background

On Thursday, Ham Kiggundu led a walkout from court after his lawyers, led by Fred Muwema, protested that they had not been given an opportunity to be heard.

Kiggundu, who is the proprietor of Ham Enterprises Ltd and Kiggs International (U) Ltd, dragged DTB-Uganda, and DTB-Kenya to the Commercial Court claiming they had fraudulently siphoned over sh120b from his accounts without his knowledge and consent, which consequently directed that he is refunded the money taken from his account.

The bank, however, appealed against the judgement of the Commercial court on the grounds that there was no illegality committed contrary to the Financial Institutions Act.

In May 2021, the Court of Appeal panel, which included Deputy Chief Justice Richard Butera, Kenneth Kakuru and Christopher Madrama ruled in favour of the Diamond Trust Bank and set aside the High Court judgement.

The Court of Appeal ordered a retrial of the case by the Commercial Court, prompting the businessman to run to the Supreme Court to appeal against the decision of the Court of Appeal.