Medics disown Dr Oledo despite court directive

The Uganda Medical Association (UMA) has insisted that Dr Samuel Oledo is not their president and accused him of misinterpreting a recent court ruling over the matter.
Through their lawyers of Gem Advocates, UMA said their vice president, Dr Edith Nakku Joloba, is their acting president.
Last month, Justice Musa Ssekaana issued a temporary injunction against the ejection of Dr Oledo as UMA president.

However, in a January 5 letter addressed to Dr Oledo’s lawyers of Uniqus Advocates, UMA warned that reinstating himself as the association president is illegal, irregular and an abuse of the court process for which they will challenge.
“We take issue with the manner in which you are purporting to interpret and execute the temporary injunction order issued by Justice Musa Ssekaana on December 22, 2022,” reads in part the letter.

It adds: “The referenced temporary injunctive order maintains as it obviously should at law the status quo and more particularly the status quo was clearly stated by your affidavit in support of the application namely “that an acting president has been appointed”. Your client was obviously aware that Dr Joloba was appointed acting president on December 6, and that was the status quo as on December 22, 2022.”
UMA lawyers further noted that in obedience to the court order, Dr Joloba will not implement the resolution of December 6 and thus it is clear that court neither ordered the reinstatement of Dr Oledo nor did it nullify the appointment of Dr Joloba as acting president. 
The letter further noted that the reinstatement of Dr Oledo would have been based on the application for mandatory injunction and not a temporary injunctive order.

“Your client is at liberty to apply to court for reinstatement since an acting president had already been appointed by the time he applied for a temporary injunction. Dr Joloba is the vice president of our client and she is required to act whenever the president is unable to do so,” the letter further reads in part.
In his December 22 ruling, Justice Ssekaana observed that by the time Dr Oledo came to court on December 9, he was still the president of UMA and the association was fully aware of the pending matters in court as they were served on December 16 about the same.
According to the judge, the status quo prior or as at the time the application was filed in court on December 9,  ought to be preserved to avoid prejudice of rights of the applicant (DR Oledo) pending the determination of the main cause.

“The action of the respondent (UMA) to change the status quo is untenable and this court cannot be overrun through illegalities and ‘mob’ decisions like what was done on December 18, 2022,” Justice Ssekaana ruled.
In his main case pending hearing, Dr Oledo is seeking a declaration that the decision by the UMA dated December 6 to conduct an investigation on his conduct and stepping aside from office is illegal, ultra vires, biased, high handed, irrational, substantiated with bad faith and breach of the rules of natural justice. He also sought for an order quashing the decision of UMA appointing the vice president as acting president.

UMA resolutions
Among the resolutions passed on December 6, UMA said its Ethics and Professionalism Committee would investigate the conduct of Dr Oledo within five working days after which he would step aside immediately to allow an independent investigation. Others were that the vice president acts as the president of the association and UMA would call for an extra-ordinary general meeting responding to the petition from members within a period of 21 days as per the constitution.