Lawyers Clash Over Shs4bn NRM Campaign T-Shirts Case


City lawyers have clashed over a case in which a Dubai based Company wants to be paid over Shs4bn for the T-shirts it supplied NRM party during the 2011 elections.

nrm party
NRM Supporters putting on Party T shirts

Bright Arrows Trading Company sued Kampala Modernity Stationers and Printers Ltd which was allegedly contracted to supply the T-shirts by the NRM party.

A standoff however ensued in court when NRM lawyer Geoffrey Kandeebe Ntambirweki told court that the party denies ever contracting Kampala Modernity to supply the T-shirts, receiving them or even paying for them.

“Your client paid almost a million US dollars for the commodities, is this also denied?” Kabega demanded.

In reply Kandeebe said the Party insists it has never dealt with Kampala Modernity and it will put its directors to strict proof of whatever they are alleging through cross-examination.

This transpired during the scheduling conference in a case between Bright Arrows and Kampala Modernity.

Court records show that when Kampala Modernity was sued, it passed on the blame of non-payment to NRM and asked court to include it on the proceedings as a third party.

In its plaint, Bright Arrows claims to have entered an agreement with Kampala Modernity to supply two million pieces of Round Neck T-shirts, 60,000 pieces of Collar T-shirt, one million pieces of Scarves and 200,000 pieces of sleeveless T-shirts.

These quantities were reduced but a debt of USD1,375,100 over Shs4.1bn remained due and owing.

“It was a major term of the memorandum that the defendant would pay 50% of the value of goods in advance and the balance upon delivery. It was also a major term of the memorandum that in case the defendant delayed or breached the foregoing payment structure, then it would pay liquidated damages or penalty of 30% of the value of goods,” Bright Arrow stated through its lawyers of Web Advocates.

In reply Kampala Modernity through its lawyer of Muwema and Company Advocates and solicitors stated that it was not the principal debtor and neither was it the contracting party.

“The defendant (Kampala Modernity) entered into a Memorandum with the plaintiff (Bright Arrows) for supply of various assorted T-shirts which it was to supply to the NRM party, a disclosed principal the plaintiff was aware of.

The plaintiff should have sued the NRM for its claim or at least have joined it as a party to the suit,” they stated.

Justice Christopher Madrama of the Commercial court resolved that since Kampala Modernity does not deny the debt or receiving the T-shirts from Bright Arrows on behalf of NRM, then the case should shift towards Kampala Modernity to first prove that it got authority from NRM to have those T-shirts.

“If a case is proved against the third party (NRM) then it will be liable to pay but if it is not proved then plaintiff (Bright Arrows) will have to recover its claim from the defendant (Kampala Modernity),” Justice Madrama stated. He gave the parties up totoday to present to him facts they can agree on and return to court on June 19, 2015 so that he gives them a date for hearing.

About Post Author