The Chief Justice, the Principal Judge, and the head of the Commercial Court had a dispute over a case of allocation claim worth more than Shs4 Billion.
It appears that there is a split in the judiciary’s upper echelons due to the way a legal issue involving a petitioner, Mr. Justus Kyabahwa, who offered consulting services, and China Henan International Corporation Group Company Limited (CHICO) was handled.
Chief Justice Alphonse Owiny-Dollo and Principal Judge Flavian Zeija are on one side of the dispute, while High Court judge Stephen Mubiru, who serves as the president of the Commercial Court, is on the other.
According to Justice Mubiru, currents burbling below the radar are attempting to seize his authority and manipulate the reallocation of a case, which is contrary to accepted protocol. He charges the Chinese company with forum shopping, a process when litigants seek to appear before a court that would issue a favorable verdict.

The legal team defending the Chinese construction company had requested that Justice Mubiru withdraws from the execution due to bias, a charge he fiercely denied. While CHICO was represented by Lawgic Advocates, Crane Associated Attorneys appeared to represent Mr. Kyabahwa.
This dispute over the allocation claim started after CHICO hired Mr. Kyabahwa to give consulting services on September 16, 2018, for a sum of $2,200,000(about Shs8.1 billion) for the building of the 78.5-kilometer Rukungiri-Kihihi-Ishasha/Kanungu Road. The African Development Bank (ADB) and the Ugandan government jointly funded the initiative.
The parties agreed that Mr. Kyabahwa would get this money from the initial installment that Uganda National Roads Authority paid to the company (UNRA). The Chinese company received an advance payment from UNRA in December 2018, but Mr. Kyabahwa was neither informed nor received his contract sum as agreed.
The consultant contacted the Chinese company after learning about the payment. On January 14, 2019, the parties signed a document reducing the contract value from $2,200,000 (Shs8.1 billion) to $1,300,000 (Shs4.8 billion).
The decrease was predicted on the assumption that the ADB had revoked the loan used to finance the road project, forcing the business to renegotiate with UNRA. Later on, the consultant found out that the rumors that the ADB had stopped financing the building were incorrect.
Mr. Kyabahwa filed a lawsuit against the Chinese company alleging that it had broken the terms of the consultancy agreement. He also asked for a decision that the contract of variation parties was invalid because it was based on fraudulent misrepresentation. He demanded $900,000 for settlement.
High court Judge Duncan Gaswaga decided in favor of Mr. Kyabahwa on March 19, 2021, concluding that the contract of variation was unlawful and that the Chinese company had violated the consulting agreement of the parties by refusing to give the remaining consulting amount to the businessman.
The judge granted Kyabahwa $450,000 (Shs1.7 billion) in general damages for contract violation and inconvenience, in addition to the $900,000(Shs3.3 billion) remaining balance on the contract.
The Chinese company appealed the High Court’s verdict because it was unacceptable, and the Court of Appeal has not yet made a judgment.
Also Read:- Somalia Praises Museveni For His Assistance in Army Training
The Chinese company applied for a stay of execution of the High Court’s order on June 30, 2022. It was out of concern that Mr. Kyabahwa would seize the project funds from its bank account, which would prevent the government from finishing the road.
The company’s country manager, Mr. Zhang Jianwein, provided an affidavit in support of the application, which stated that Mr. Kyabahwa had already obtained $950,000 (Shs3.5 billion) through garnishee proceedings and was attempting to obtain an additional $400,000 (Shs1.4 billion) at the time the application for a stay execution was filed.
In the legal process known as garnishment, a court receives a portion of the income or property of the debtor in exchange for payment of the debt.
Looking into the counter-accusations, Mr. Kyabahwa claims that even though Justice Mubiru was given the case, he declined to disqualify himself in a judgment dated July 12, 2022. Still, the principal Judge requested the file, heard the application, and decided the case in favor of the Chinese company.
The lawyers of the Chinese company have leveled accusations of bias against Justice Mubiru, which he has declined. According to the Uganda Code of Judicial Conduct, a judicial officer should avoid taking part in any proceedings in which it is reasonable to doubt their objectivity.
After being shocked by these accusations and being given the execution case through an electronic system, Justice Mubitu passionately defends himself against claims of bias.
One of the most important safeguards and innovations the Ugandan judiciary has made to promote transparency in the administration of justice is the implementation of the electronic system. In 2022, the judiciary implemented the Electronic Court Case Management Information System initially in Kampala and the adjacent districts.
Read More:- Kisumu: Azimio Protestors Disrupt Communications Authority Event