By Nathan Atiluk
City tycoon Sudhir Ruparelia on Monday petitioned High Court, in an affidavit rejoinder of the affidavits of Mr. Ernest Sembatya , Mr. William Kasozi , and Ms. Margaret Kasule that are full of falsehood concerning about Crane Banks receivership of Shs397 billion dispute.
In a seven-paged affidavit he filed in the Commercial Court on 11th September 2017, the business man, who accuses BoU lawyers of conflict interest, argues that MMAKS Advocates and AF Mpanga are false as they suggested that I (Ruparelia) am attempting to “conflate Crane Bank Limited” with myself. It is plaintiff in High Court Civil Suit 493 of 2017 who attempts to “conflate Crane Bank Limited” with myself.
“I have been advised by my lawyers of M/S Kampala Associate Advocates, which advise I believe is true that according to paragraph 2 of Mr. Ernest Sembatya’s affidavit is false in so far as it suggests that I am attempting to “conflate Crane Bank Limited” with myself. It is the plaintiff in High Court Civil Suit 493 of 2017 who attempts to conflate Crane Bank Limited with myself”, Mr Ruparelia States in his application before the Commercial Court.
In additional to Mr Ruparelia’s file on Mr Sembatya’s affidavit, paragraph 3 and 4 are false and argumentative. And that paragraph 5 and 6, Mr Sembtya’s affidavit are based on contested facts which are completely false.
In specific response to paragraphs 3,8,13,18,19,20 and 21 of the affidavit of Mr William Kasozi are also argumentative, not based on any facts and violate the rules as to the affidavits and further are based on Mr Kasozi’s “ views”, “disappointments” and “contentions” none of which matters are capable of being in an affidavit.
“I have been advised by my lawyers which advise I verily believe is to be true that paragraphs mentioned above are argumentative, not based on any facts and violate the rules of affidavits”, read part of Mr Ruparalia’s response to Mr Kasozi’s affidavit.
Mr Ruparalia further noted that he read Ms. Margaret Kasule’s affidavit and suggested that it was also full of falsehood. The businessman stated that the suit cannot be based on the PWC documents of 2017 when the same was neither relied upon nor annexed in the plaint.
In conclusion to his response towards Mr Sembatya and Mr Kasozi’s affidavits , Mr Ruparalia noted that their averments stating that MMAKS Advocates and AF Mpanga Advocates are the only capable ,ethical ,and incorruptible lawyers in Uganda to handle this matter are false, scandalous , and presumptuous.
“In response to paragraphs 12 and 22 of Mr Sembatya and Mr Kasozi’s affidavits respectively, their stating that MMAKS are the only genuine, ethical and incorruptible lawyers in Uganda to handle this matter is totally false, scandalous and presumptuous”, read Ruparalia’s affidavit rejoinder to the affidavits of Margaret Kasule, Willam Kasozi and Enerst Sembatya.