Jinja advocate convicted over misconduct
Apr 08, 2003
The disciplinary committee of the Law Council has convicted a Jinja-based advocate, Shaban Muziransa, for misleading court and professional misconduct.
By Vision Reporter
The disciplinary committee of the Law Council has convicted a Jinja-based advocate, Shaban Muziransa, for misleading court and professional misconduct.
The law council sitting at the Ministry of Justice headquarters on Parliamentary Avenue, ruled on Friday that Muziransa be compelled to pay a fine of sh400,000.
He was also ordered to pay sh100,000 as costs to the law council and pay damages and costs of the suit that was filed by Kengrow Industries Limited.
The committee said it was convinced that Muziransa went against a ruling by the High Court that Kengrow’s properties had to be suspended for attachment.
“Mr. Shaban Muziransa applied for execution knowing that an order to stay execution had been issued by the same court on the same matter, leading to the acting deputy registrar to issue a warrant of attachment erroneously,†the ruling by Cheborion Barishaki, Agaba Maguru and J.M.M Mugisha says.
The ruling adds that following the warrant issued in error, Muziransa proceeded to attach various vehicles belonging to the complainant Kengrow.
“By applying for a warrant of execution without disclosing to the acting registrar that a stay had been made earlier, he was unprofessional. We therefore find you guilty,†the committee ruled.
The disciplinary committee of the Law Council has convicted a Jinja-based advocate, Shaban Muziransa, for misleading court and professional misconduct.
The law council sitting at the Ministry of Justice headquarters on Parliamentary Avenue, ruled on Friday that Muziransa be compelled to pay a fine of sh400,000.
He was also ordered to pay sh100,000 as costs to the law council and pay damages and costs of the suit that was filed by Kengrow Industries Limited.
The committee said it was convinced that Muziransa went against a ruling by the High Court that Kengrow’s properties had to be suspended for attachment.
“Mr. Shaban Muziransa applied for execution knowing that an order to stay execution had been issued by the same court on the same matter, leading to the acting deputy registrar to issue a warrant of attachment erroneously,†the ruling by Cheborion Barishaki, Agaba Maguru and J.M.M Mugisha says.
The ruling adds that following the warrant issued in error, Muziransa proceeded to attach various vehicles belonging to the complainant Kengrow.
“By applying for a warrant of execution without disclosing to the acting registrar that a stay had been made earlier, he was unprofessional. We therefore find you guilty,†the committee ruled.