By Spy Uganda
Kampala-As the bitter property dispute between Muwema & Co. Advocates and their Kololo landlord, Downtown Property Holdings, continues to dominate public debate, netizens on X have dug deep into legal archives and resurrected a 2017 High Court ruling that paints an uncomfortable historical picture for city lawyer Fred Muwema.
The resurfaced judgment, delivered on March 27, 2017 by Hon. Lady Justice Anna B. Mugenyi of the High Court Commercial Division, found Muwema liable for withholding millions of shillings belonging to his own client.
The ruling arose from Civil Suit No. 565 of 2015: Musisi Enock Stephen Vs Fred Muwema.
https://x.com/i/status/2033467334313025599
Court Orders Muwema To Refund Shs332.5M
According to the court record, Musisi Enock Stephen had hired Muwema as his advocate during a land transaction involving 9.5 acres located on Block 429, Plots 284, 298 and 14 off Entebbe Road.
Musisi had initially purchased the land from one Richard Bakojja on February 4, 2010. Before completing payment, the land was resold under a new agreement dated July 14, 2010 for Shs1,087,500,000 (Uganda Shillings One Billion Eighty Seven Million Five Hundred Thousand).
Muwema acted as the lawyer handling the transaction and was entrusted with the sale proceeds meant for his client.
However, according to court documents, Musisi was entitled to receive Shs712,500,000 (Uganda Shillings Seven Hundred Twelve Million Five Hundred Thousand) from the transaction. Instead, he only received Shs380,000,000 (Uganda Shillings Three Hundred Eighty Million) in installments.
This left a balance of Shs332,500,000 (Uganda Shillings Three Hundred Thirty Two Million Five Hundred Thousand) which the lawyer allegedly failed to remit.
The client later discovered that the buyer had already paid the full amount to Muwema. When confronted, the advocate reportedly acknowledged the outstanding balance and promised to refund the money but allegedly failed to do so.
How the matter ended up before court.
In a dramatic turn during the hearing on January 14, 2017, Muwema, through his lawyers, admitted liability, prompting the court to enter judgment in favour of the plaintiff for the Shs332,500,000 (Uganda Shillings Three Hundred Thirty Two Million Five Hundred Thousand) claimed in the plaint.
The only remaining dispute was whether interest and legal costs should be awarded.
Court Awards Interest And Costs
In her ruling, Justice Mugenyi held that the advocate had indeed kept his client out of his money for years, noting that the last installment had been received on October 26, 2010.
Citing several legal authorities including National Medical Stores Vs Penjuines Ltd and the landmark English case Harbutt’s Plasticine Ltd Vs Wayne Tank & Pump Co. Ltd (1970), the judge reiterated that courts award interest to compensate victims whose money has been wrongfully withheld.
She ruled:
“In the circumstances of this case and in view of the authorities cited above, the defendant kept the plaintiff out of his money i.e. Shs332,500,000 (Uganda Shillings Three Hundred Thirty Two Million Five Hundred Thousand) since 2010 to date.”
However, the court rejected the plaintiff’s request for a commercial interest rate of 25%, holding that the dispute was not a commercial transaction.
Instead, the court awarded interest at 6% per annum from the date of judgment until payment in full.
Justice Mugenyi also granted the plaintiff full costs of the suit.
Netizens Link Old Case To Current Kololo Eviction Drama
The resurfacing of this ruling comes at a time when Muwema is already facing intense public scrutiny following his dramatic eviction from his Kololo law offices by Downtown Property Holdings over alleged unpaid rent.
In the now widely circulated videos, court bailiffs and enforcement officers were seen throwing out furniture and files from the law firm premises, an incident that triggered heated debate on social media.
Some commentators have since argued that the 2017 ruling reveals what they describe as a pattern of financial disputes involving the outspoken lawyer.
On X (formerly Twitter), several users circulated screenshots of the judgment, claiming the case demonstrated earlier accusations that Muwema had withheld funds entrusted to him by clients.
The comparisons have grown even sharper, with some commentators controversially likening the situation to the notorious conduct of late city lawyer Bob Kasango.
The Kasango Precedent: When A Lawyer Refused To Pay A Queen Mother
Kasango became one of Uganda’s most infamous legal figures after being convicted over a scandal involving billions of shillings belonging to the Queen Mother of Tooro Kingdom, Best Kemigisa Akiiki (Burungi Buliza).
In that case, land controversially belonging to the Queen Mother in Bunyangabu, Kabarole and Kyegegwa Districts had been sold to the Government of Uganda through the Uganda Land Commission. The proceeds were deposited into Kasango’s Bank account as the lawyer handling the transaction on behalf of the former close friend to Late Col. Muama Gaddafi of Libya.
However, Kasango allegedly refused to remit the money to her client. After a lengthy legal battle, the courts ruled in favour of the Queen Mother and ordered the lawyer to refund the funds. Kasango defied the order and was eventually jailed.
In a bizarre twist that shocked many, he reportedly chose to serve his prison sentence rather than surrender the money, fueling his infamous reputation in Kampala legal circles as a man who never returned anything entrusted to him.
Kasango later died while serving time in Luzira Prison.
A Legal Principle With Long Memory
Legal analysts note that court precedents — even decades old — often resurface in public debate because the legal profession heavily relies on past rulings when determining new disputes.
It is not uncommon, they say, for lawyers in Ugandan courts to cite decisions from cases decided in the 1960s, the 1920s, or even from foreign jurisdictions.
For critics on social media, the rediscovery of the Musisi Vs Muwema ruling has therefore provided ammunition in the ongoing debate surrounding the Kololo eviction saga.
Whether the comparisons being drawn online are fair or exaggerated remains a matter of opinion.
But one thing is certain: in the age of digital archives and social media, legal history has a long memory — and old court rulings have a habit of returning to haunt the present. Ngenzire owaitu Tooro caali🏃🏃🏃
Read Full Ruling Below 👇
