Muwema & Company Advocates has announced its intention to appeal a High Court judgment that ordered the firm to pay shs.14 billion (USD 148,300 billion) in rent arrears, USD 224,000 in mesne profits, shs50 million in general damages, and to vacate its offices at Plot 50 Windsor Crescent Road, Kololo.
In her judgement , Justice Patricia Mutesi said the law firm has no legal basis to continue occupying the contested premises.
The dispute arises from a dispute with the property owner, Down Town Investments Limited.
In a statement released by the law firm, Muwema & Co. said the judgment “sensationalized” the case and failed to appreciate key facts.
According to Muwema, the firm entered a five-year renewable lease in 2016, which included an option to purchase the property.
He said the firm exercised this option in August 2021, offering USD 1,050,000 for approximately 60 decimals of land, a rate in line with market values in the Kololo area.
Muwema & Co. asserts that despite repeated requests, Down Town failed to negotiate a market-based sale or issue a counteroffer, instead demanding increased rent.
“Muwema & Co. had ceased to be tenants and had become purchasers in waiting,” the statement reads, adding that the firm had already paid USD 130,000 toward the disputed rent during court-mediated talks.
The law firm criticized the High Court order as factually and legally flawed.
They argue that the court overlooked the payment made, improperly awarded mesne profits without evidence, and disregarded their lawful right to purchase the property.
“The trial Judge erred by awarding Downtown rent arrears of USD 148,300 as of 30th May 2023 while ignoring the available evidence on the record showing a payment of USD 130,000 against that claim,”Muwema says.
The law firms says the judge relied incorrectly on Section 36 of the Land Act, which provides purchase options to tenants by occupancy—a category Muwema & Co. says does not apply to them.
“The trial Judge erred in law and fact by finding that we did not enjoy the right to purchase the property despite exercising our option to purchase it. In doing so, the trial Judge erroneously relied on S.36 Land Act Cap 236 granting an option to purchase to tenants by occupancy, which we are not.”
The law firms says the judge erred when she awarded mesne profits of USD 224,000 on ground of wrongful possession of the lease premises whereas Downtown did not plead or prove any amount of mesne profits nor file any case for wrongful possession.
“We are committed to the lawful pursuit of our right to purchase the premises through the justice system until its logical conclusion. We assure our clients, partners and the general public to continue expecting our experienced, driven and effective service.”
