The High Court of Uganda’s Commercial Division has ruled in favor of the Kingdom of Denmark, granting it substitution as the plaintiff in an ongoing legal battle involving the now-defunct Democratic Governance Facility (DGF).
The case, originally filed in November 2020 by the DGF, was aimed at recovering funds and assets from the Centre for Constitutional Governance (CCG) and two individuals, Rabwoni Okwiri and Kakwanzi Hellen. However, with the cessation of DGF’s operations in Uganda on June 30, 2023, the need arose for a legal successor to continue pursuing the matter.
In the ruling, Lady Justice Anna B. Mugenyi upheld the application, which was filed by the Royal Danish Embassy on behalf of Denmark. The judge found that the addendum to the memorandum of understanding between DGF’s development partners clearly authorised Denmark to take over unresolved legal matters related to the facility.
The ruling allows the Kingdom of Denmark to be substituted as the plaintiff in Civil Suit No. 0953 of 2020, ensuring continuity in the litigation. However, the respondents, led by Dr. Bireete Sarah of CCG, had contested the application on grounds that Denmark’s diplomatic immunity could hinder their ability to access fair proceedings. They argued that diplomatic representatives are generally not compelled to testify in court under the Diplomatic Privileges Act.
Pearl Bank Celebrates Customers in Festive Campaign Dubbed Pearl SantaJustice Mugenyi dismissed these concerns, citing legal precedent that voluntary initiation of legal proceedings effectively waives diplomatic immunity in relation to counterclaims. She emphasized that the substitution would not prejudice the respondents’ ability to seek redress or file counterclaims.
“The substitution of the DGF, which has ceased its operations, with the Kingdom of Denmark is in the interest of justice and will not in any way prejudice the respondents,” Justice Mugenyi stated in her ruling.
Legal experts say the ruling sets a significant precedent regarding the continuation of legal proceedings involving development agencies and their funding partners after the cessation of their local operations. It also highlights the evolving legal landscape surrounding diplomatic immunity in commercial litigation.
