Elvis Ssekyanzi Wavamunno, once a budding entrepreneur and son of prominent businessman Gordon Wavamunno, has lost his bid to reopen a commercial court case in which Maru Capital is seeking to recover Shs164.86 million from him.
Ssekyanzi had sought to stop Maru Capital from recovering its money, arguing that the earlier case had been decided in his absence, but Justice Dr Ginamia Melody Ngwatu dismissed his application, saying he had not given the court enough evidence to explain why he and his lawyers repeatedly failed to attend court.
The ruling arose from a civil case in 2024, in which Maru Capital sued Ssekyanzi seeking recovery of Shs 164.8 million.
The money, according to Ssekyanzi’s own account in the application, arose from two loans which Maru Capital had advanced to him.
The first loan was Shs42.2 million, while the second was Shs30.6 million. Maru Capital argued that the loans attracted interest of 6% a month and that, after Ssekyanzi made part payment on the first loan, the outstanding amount had grown to Shs164.8 million.
But Ssekyanzi challenged the interest, arguing that 6%, which is equivalent to 72%, was excessive.
He told the court that his defence had raised the argument that the interest was “high, unconscionable and extortionate” and that the court should reopen the transaction under the law.
The dispute, however, took another turn when Ssekyanzi failed to appear in court on several occasions.
Ssekyanzi told the court that he had instructed Emoru & Co Advocates to represent him and believed that the lawyers were properly handling his case.
He said he was therefore shocked when a lawyer friend later informed him that the court had allowed Maru Capital to proceed with the case in his absence.
According to Ssekyanzi, he contacted his former lawyers after receiving the information, but his calls went unanswered. He then instructed Springs Advocates to investigate what had happened.
His new lawyers discovered that neither Ssekyanzi nor his former lawyers had attended court on October 28, 2025, and February 11, 2026, when the matter came up.
Ssekyanzi argued that he had not deliberately stayed away from court. Instead, he blamed the failure on the negligence of his previous lawyers.
He asked Justice Ngwatu to allow him to defend the case, saying he wanted to present evidence and cross-examine Maru Capital’s witness.
He also told the court that he had filed his witness statement and trial bundle on the Electronic Court Case Management Information System (ECCMIS), showing that he was ready for the case to be heard on its merits.
But Joshua Mazune, the managing director of Maru Capital, told the court that Ssekyanzi and his lawyers had been served with notices but repeatedly failed to attend court.
He said that on February 25, 2025, the court issued summons for directions, fixing the matter for March 10, 2025. The applicant’s lawyers did not attend.
The court then directed the parties to file a joint scheduling memorandum and trial bundles and adjourned the case to April 28, 2025.
Although the joint scheduling memorandum was eventually filed, Maru Capital said Ssekyanzi failed to file his trial bundle.
On April 28, 2025, neither Ssekyanzi nor his lawyers appeared, prompting the court to allow the case to proceed ex parte.
When the case later came up again for hearing on October 28, 2025, neither Ssekyanzi nor his lawyers showed up.
Mazune said the court directed the parties to file witness statements and fixed the matter for hearing on February 11, 2026, and they sent another letter to Ssekyanzi’s lawyers, who acknowledged receipt.
But on February 11, Mazune said Ssekyanzi and his lawyers again failed to appear, forcing the court to proceed with the hearing in their absence.
This was the point at which Ssekyanzi rushed back to court seeking to stop the case from being concluded without him.
His lawyer, Andrew Wambi of Springs Capital, argued that Ssekyanzi had shown sufficient cause because his failure to attend court was caused by the mistakes and neglect of his former lawyers.
Wambi relied on a Supreme Court decision, Banco Arabe Espano v Bank of Uganda, to argue that mistakes, negligence or oversight by a lawyer should not automatically be blamed on a client.
But Maru Capital’s lawyer, Barbara Musimenta of Akantorana & Co Advocates, argued that Ssekyanzi had not shown that he was genuinely unaware of what was happening in his case.
She pointed out that Ssekyanzi’s own witness statement and trial bundle had been prepared by Emoru & Co Advocates on February 23 and 24, 2026, and filed on March 3.
Woman accused of laundering Shs 9bn granted bail because she is a ‘single mother’
After hearing the arguments, Justice Ngwatu said the sequence of events “undermined the credibility of Ssekyanzi’s evidence.
“He [Ssekyanzi] was in communication with his lawyers at all material times until the filing of this application, when he engaged his current lawyers,” she said.
She also rejected a preliminary objection by Maru Capital that Ssekyanzi’s new lawyers had not properly filed a notice of change of advocates.
Justice Ngwatu said a notice of change had actually been filed on March 3, 2026, before the application was filed, and therefore ruled that the objection had no merit.
She then turned to the main question of whether Ssekyanzi had shown enough reason for the court to reopen the case.
Justice Ngwatu noted that Ssekyanzi had relied on Order 9 rule 27 of the Civil Procedure Rules but added that the provision applies where an ex parte decree or judgment has already been issued.
In Ssekyanzi’s case, judgment had not yet been delivered because the case had only been heard in his absence and had been fixed for judgment.
She said Order 9 rule 27 was inapplicable in the circumstances.
Justice Ngwatu said the evidence showed that Ssekyanzi had not been sufficiently diligent in following his case, adding that even after Maru Capital sent a letter to Emoru & Co Advocates notifying them about the February 11 hearing, the lawyers and Ssekyanzi still did not attend.
“From the totality of the evidence adduced before this honourable court, [Ssekyanzi] cannot be regarded as a prudent litigant,” she ruled.
She added that hiring a lawyer does not mean a client can completely leave the case to the lawyer without checking what is happening.
Quoting another High Court decision, Denis Ahairwe v Standard Chartered Bank (U) Ltd, Justice Ngwatu said the act of engaging an advocate does not constitute an abdication of the litigant’s duty to diligently pursue their claim or defence.
She said the client must consistently check with their advocate and find out the progress of the suit.
Justice Ngwatu said that mistakes by lawyers should ordinarily not be used to punish their clients, but said that principle has limits.
She therefore found that Ssekyanzi had failed to provide sufficient evidence to justify reopening the ex parte proceedings and dismissed the application.
What this means is that Maru Capital won this particular application. However, it does not mean that the court has awarded Maru Capital the Shs164.86 million claimed in the main suit.
Ssekyanzi was a co-founder and managing director of Club Silk and Silk Events, both of which collapsed. He now runs his father’s company, Wavah Water.
