Justice Bashaija of the Land Division dismissed with costs an application an application by traders in the contested city buildings to amend their suit against businessmen, Drake Lubega and Mansur Matovu alias Yang.

He agreed with the respondents that there was no serious issue that required judicial of the appeal noting that the application would still be heard to its logical conclusion without amendment.

The affected traders numbering to 292 operate on Qualicel, Nabukeera and Jamborree buildings, which are at the center of a dispute pitying businessmen, Drake Lubega and Mansur Matovu against Horizon Coaches Limited, which belongs to the late Charles Muhangi.

The buildings are currently being claimed by city businessmen Drake Lubega, Mansur Matovu and the late rally driver Charles Muhangi through his Horizon coaches ltd. Both Lubega and Mansur are claiming ownership of the building following the sudden and abrupt death of Muhangi in February this year to whom the traders were paying their rent arrears too. The two have since informed the traders that the buildings belong to them not the late Muhangi whom the Supreme court had declared owner of the buildings and are demamanding them to not only pay their current arrears to them, but also pay the already five months arrears that they had paid to Muhangi (now the late). The traders want court to clarify on who are the rightful owners and managers to whom they shall pay rent.

The traders ran to court seeking orders compelling Drake Lubega and Mansur Matovu for the losses they have suffered following the closure of their shops.  The traders through their lawyer, Erias Lukwago asked Justice Andrew Bashaija to stop Lubega and Matovu from collecting rent from them until the contested ownership of the buildings of resolved.

The lawyer also asked court to amend the suit so as to refer to a matter in the Land Division in 2013 where Horizon Coaches Limited that was under the management of the late Charles Muhangi sued Lubega and Matovu for trespass on his property.

The respondent’s lawyers, Oscar Kihika and Adam Kirumira opposed the prayers, arguing that it would contravene the civil rules of procedures since they had not included the matter at the beginning.  In his ruling, Justice Bashaija concurred with the respondents and rejected Lukwago’s application.

Lukwago, the lawyer applied to be granted leave to appeal against the ruling raising objection from the respondent’s lawyers citing the urgency of the matter before Court. Kirumira argued that granting Lukwago leave to appeal the ruling will delay their matter yet they want it concluded.

Justice Bashaija agreed with the respondents, saying there is no serious issue that required judicial consideration of the appeal. Bashaija noted that the application would still be heard to its logical conclusion without any amendments.

He dismissed the request with costs to the respondents.