Soroti Woman MP, Anna Ebaju Adeke could potentially lose Shs 200 million she invested in a gold exploration deal after court dismissed her application seeking to dissolve the partnership with her co-investors.
How it all started
On May 17, 2024, C-Asian Mining and Minerals, a mining firm, signed a financing agreement with Adeke and her partner Paul Wanyoto to fund gold exploration and mining in the Kyambura wild game reserve. As per the agreement, Adeke and Wanyoto were supposed to provide $ 66,500 (Shs 233 million) but only gave $ 56,400, (Shs 202 million) leaving a balance of $ 10,100 (Shs 36 million).
C-Asian Mining claims it paid Shs 188 million to Adeke and Wanyoto as part of the agreement.
However, on January 6, 2025, Adeke issued a “statutory demand” asking for $76,400 (Shs 273 million), money she said C-Asian Mining had to provide as part of the agreement. The mining firm argued that Adeke’s demand was unfair and premature, as the agreement was still ongoing.
Enter court
In turn, C-Asian run to the commercial court and issued a counterclaim against the Adeke and Wanyoto for not providing the full amount promised.
So they asked court to cancel Adeke’s statutiry demand because she still owed them money and that the agreement was still on-going.
In court, Adeke insisted that C-Asian had to repay the entire $ 76,400. She claimed the Applicants breached the agreement from the start by not making repayments and blocking her access to the mining site.
She also argued that C-Asian had filed their challenge to the statutory demand too late (after 10 days) and that it should be dismissed.
Wanyoto claimed he wasn’t part of the Financing Agreement and shouldn’t be involved in the case, leaving Adeke stranded.
In the end, Justice Patience Rubagumya of the commerical court found that there was a genuine dispute among the parties. C-Asian provided evidence (like WhatsApp messages and payment receipts) showing they dealt with Wanyoto and paid Shs 188 million as part of the deal.
In court, Adeke didn’t prove the debt was clear and undisputed. Additionally, court agreed that C-Asian had a valid counterclaim because Adeke and Wanyoto did not provide the full $66,500 as they promised. The court also agreed that Adeke’s statutory demand was premature, as the agreement was still active.
The court noted that insolvency laws are meant to handle cases where a debtor can’t pay their debts, not for one creditor to collect a disputed debt.
“No evidence was adduced to show that C-Asian is undergoing financial distress or that the failure to pay the money in issue had anything to do with the company’s inability to pay its debts,” she ruled.
The court decided to cancel Adeke’s statutory demand meaning she cannot use it to force C-Asian into insolvency proceedings. Each party was ordered to pay their own legal costs/
