But Justice Henry Peter Adonyo dismissed Mabirizi’s case since it had been dismissed by a higher court.
“There being no legal basis upon which the stay of this proceeding can be based,” ruled Adonyo.
“It is the holding of this court that the application of stay of proceedings lacks merit and ought to fail accordingly as the main suit has already been declared a nullity by the court of appeal. This court is thus constrained to dismiss this allocation with costs to the correspondent. I do so order.”
Justice Adonyo also had options for Mabirizi.
“There being no cause for this court to adjudicate upon, it is now left upon the applicant at the Supreme Court to seek orders either for reinstatement of the same cause or alternatively file another suit whichever will be applicable,” he counselled.
This was the second case Mabirizi lost on the same matter.
At the start of October, three Court of Appeal Justices — Ezekiel Muhanguzi, Fredrick Egonda Ntende and Hellen Obura — challenged a High Court order to force the Kabaka to disclose land board documents.
The matter did not qualify as a public law action, ruled the justices. There was also no proof that Mabirizi was acting on behalf of the tenants on Kabaka’s land.
“The appellant [Buganda monarch Kabaka] is not a government or public authority who wields governmental powers and in acting out of the actions complained of, there is no assertion that he is exercising governmental authority,” the judges had ruled after Buganda challenged the High Court order.
“The action on behalf of other persons who are not named and whose consent has not been obtained is a representative action and is unlawful.”
Mabirizi Responds to Justice Henry Peter Adonyo on Dismissal of Case against Kabaka
Mabirizi said “dismissing the case is wrong because the Supreme Court is now determining the appeal on whether the discovery was proper and this discovery was on the case so you can’t claim here and say the case is improper and you are dismissing it”.
On their part, Buganda Kingdom lawyer Chris Bwanika said: “The court holds that Mabirizi’s case is unsustainable in law unless it’s his personal grievance and personal case but he insists on pursuing a case for people who are not in court, not mentioned and have not authorized him to act for them.”
“He is simply trying to ride on claims of other people’s cases to make money and gain out of misguided litigation,” added Bwanika.