Honorable Justice Percy Night Tuhaise, one of the five Judges presiding over the HAM vs. DTB appeal, has made a post-judgment statement that has thrown the legal community into disarray. The statement, titled “Reasons why I declined to half delivery of judgment,” was signed and delivered by Justice Tuhaise on the 29th of June 2023, sparking a storm of controversy and casting doubts on the integrity of the entire judgment process in civil appeal No. 13/2021.
In her statement, Justice Tuhaise unequivocally disclaims responsibility for the judgment rendered in the high-profile case between HAM and Diamond Trust Bank (DTB). She contends that the judgment process was marred by irregularities and unresolved applications, leading her to distance herself from the verdict.
The Honorable Judge raises serious concerns about the integrity of the judgment process, suggesting that the process was in contravention of Articles 2, 28, 44, 126, and 128 of the Constitution, rendering the entire process null and void.
One of the key issues highlighted by Justice Tuhaise is the manner in which she claims to have received instructions from the Chief Justice to deliver the judgment. This instruction allegedly came despite the presence of unsettled applications on file that were not properly addressed, heard, or decided upon.
According to the disclaimer entered into the court records, Honorable Justice Tuhaise states that she informed the appellants’ counsel, Friday Roberts Kagoro, that the judgment was delivered under protest. Counsel Kagoro exercised his right to protest the judgment, adding to the complexity and controversy surrounding the case.
The post-judgment statement by Justice Tuhaise has sent shockwaves through the legal community, with many questioning the validity of the entire judgment process and its impact on the fairness and impartiality of the judiciary.
As the legal world grapples with the implications of this revelation, calls for an independent investigation into the matter are gaining momentum. The public demands answers and accountability to ensure the sanctity of the judicial system.
In light of this development, the fate of the HAM vs. DTB appeal hangs in the balance, as the constitutional implications of the disclaimer raise critical questions about the integrity of the judgment and the conduct of those involved.
The legal community eagerly awaits further developments, with all eyes on the judicial authorities to address the controversy and restore public confidence in the administration of justice.
Would you like to get published on this Website? You can now email us an Opinion, any breaking news, Exposes, story ideas, human interest, articles, or any interesting videos at: [email protected]
