Another law firm kicked out of dfcu - Sudhir case
City businessman Sudhir Ruparelia at court recently. FILE PHOTO
What you need to know:
- Crane Management Services contends that the law firm received confidential information from them in the course of taking instructions to review their tenancies and therefore, cannot represent dfcu Bank, an opposing party in the main suit.
Kampala. Another top law firm Sebalu and Lule Co. Advocates was yesterday barred by the Commercial Court from representing dfcu Bank in a case against city businessman Sudhir Ruparelia, citing conflict of interest.
Presiding judge Paul Gadenya said there exists an “advocate-client” relationship between Crane Management Services, one of the businesses owned by Mr Ruparelia, and the law firm considering their previous dealings.
He said due to the past relationship, the firm came into possession of “confidential” and “privileged” information which is relevant to the main suit, now pending before the High Court.
Justice Gadenya said possession of such information makes them guilty of conflict of interest if they are allowed to act as opposite counsel for dfcu.
“I hold that the applicant (Crane Management Services) has made out a case that the first respondent (Sebalu & Lule Co. Advocates) is in possession of privileged and confidential information that came into his possession by virtue of being counsel of applicant,” he ruled.
The judge added: “The first respondent (law firm) is therefore conflicted and cannot ably represent the 2nd respondent (dfcu). I accordingly grant an injunction stopping the 1st respondent from acting as counsel for the 2nd respondent in this case.”
The ruling was read out by the deputy registrar Festo Nsenga on behalf of Justice Gadenya, who was absent.
Costs
The court also ordered dfcu and the firm to pay legal costs to Crane Management Services.
The judge observed that one of the lawyers of Sebalu & Lule Co. Advocates, Mr James Sebugenyi, was in 2016 contracted to review tenancy agreements by Mr Rajiv Ruparelia, one of the directors of Crane Management Services.
Justice Gadenya further stated that in the process, Mr Sebugenyi, who was given instructions by e-mail and telephone, received background information about the existing tenancies, which are now a subject of the main case in the High Court.
Crane Management Services contends that the law firm received confidential information from them in the course of taking instructions to review their tenancies and therefore, cannot represent dfcu Bank, an opposing party in the main suit.
Court documents showed that Mr Rajiv wrote to Mr Sebugenyi asking him to review six draft templates of tenancy agreements.
The scope of the review was to find and insert missing clauses and simplify them so that an ordinary trader in Kampala could easily understand them without a lawyer.
