By Spy Uganda
Kampala: One would be right to say that the ghost haunting once a socialite-Brian Kirumira aka Brian White is still angry based on the ”problem after problem life” he is living in. Despite a couple of scandals the man is immersed into, Court has ordered him to immediately clear an outstanding debt amounting to $160,000 (more than Shs566 million) for the Mercedes Benz motor vehicle he purchased from a one Alex Binyenda and went with it into hiding.
The whole saga stems from 2018 when Binyenda through his lawyers of Wameli and Company Advocates sued Brian White for recovery of an unpaid balance of $160,000 after the purchase of the motor vehicle by Kirumira.
According to court documents, in April 2018, Kirumira proposed to Binyenda that he wanted to buy the car and that he took it without authorization as the payment for the same had not been made.
“The defendant then entered negotiations with the plaintiff to buy the car until the parties agreed on $260,000. That following this, in May 2018, the defendant by agreement purchased the plaintiff’s motor vehicle at a total of $260,000 and that he paid $100,000 leaving a balance of $160,000,” reads the complaint.
It was also disclosed in court that Binyenda kept on demanding his outstanding balance but Brian White did not comply and went into hiding. The socialite was only found after the businessman reported a case to the police.
It is from that background therefore that Justice Jeanne Rwakakooko of the Commercial Division of the High Court ordered Kirumira to pay an interest of 6 per cent per year on the Shs566 million from May 2018 to the date of judgment and legal costs incurred by the complainant.
“The defendant (Kirumira) having admitted that there is indeed a balance on the purchase price of $160,000, the plaintiff is therefore entitled to the sum of $160,000, being the balance of the purchase price of the suit motor vehicle purchased by the defendant. Interest shall also be allowed,” Justice Rwakakooko said.
The Justice further melted White when he said, “The defendant consented to buy the said car to be bound and therefore it is presumed that since the description/details of the suit vehicle are clearly laid out in the logbook, the defendant should have taken note of the same before the said purchase and or carried out due diligence before purchasing the said vehicle rather than after the purchase was made as alleged.”