Court Set To Give A Final Ruling In Shs 5B Against Pastor Jackson Ssenyonga  

Lawyer files submission in Pr. Ssenyonga’s sh5b debt case

The ruling  in a sh 5b debt case against city Pr. Jackson Ssenyonga has reached the final lap.

According to the lawyer representing businessman Nathan Bisaso says they filed a written submission in a sh5b debt case against Pr. Ssenyonga. And the submissions from the two parties  is what will inform the judgement on the case. 

The Nathan dragged  Ssenyonga and together with his wife, Eva of Christian Life Church four years ago, in which he wanted to recover his money.

“Although the matter has been tried by different judicial officers, we have filed our written submissions,” said Paul  Mukiibi, the lawyer representing Bisasao.

According to lawyer who comes from Paul Mukiibi firm says that the written document has the evidence that shows Pastor Ssenyonga really took the money and failed to pay. 

When the hearing of the matter was concluded on May 11, 2022, Justice Jeanne Rwakakooko gave schedules for filing written submissions in the matter before deferring to a later date her judgement.

The judge directed the parties to submit in court their rejoinders by June 22, 2022. She is expected to make her judgment based on the submissions.

Appearing in court, Ssenyonga said that he signed the contract at Katende Ssempebwa and Company Advocates under duress.

Under cross-examination by Mukiibi, Ssenyonga conceded that there was an outstanding debt from the money Bisaso loaned him and wife but argues that the contract is illegal.

“When you and Eva signed an agreement, was is it binding to Rhino and Christian Life Church,” Mukiibi asked but Ssenyonga said it was in respect to him and his wife.

The Pastor revealed that he used the borrowed money for church project including evangelism, discipleship, school and other outreaches.

“You said you signed an illegal document. At what point did you know it was illegal,” the lawyer asked.

Asked by the lawyer whether he challenged the legality of the documents, Ssenyonga stated that he was called to Police following a complaint lodged by the plaintiff.

The lawyer wondered why Ssenyonga paid part of the money to his client on June 2, 2017 when he is arguing that the agreement is illegal.

Ssenyonga told court that it was a money loaning agreement but was disguised as a sale of goods. He said a lady identified as Margaret, a member of Christian Life Church, was present during the signing of the agreement.

In re-examination by his lawyers, Ssenyonga said he undertook to pay sh1.4b as a short term loan in the agreement but the money accrued due to 20% monthly interest.

The court heard the money accumulated to sh12b but the plaintiff reduced it to sh7b. However, the parties agreed the outstanding debt to be sh5.2b but Ssenyonga paid sh270m.

Suit

Through Ssekidde Associated Advocates, Bisaso sued Pr. Ssenyonga and wife seeking to recover the debt arising out of breach of a contract. However, the hearing of the case kicked-off after the parties failed to agree in a mediation session presided over by Vincent Mugabo.

Court documents indicate that in 2013, Bisaso entered into a contract with the defendants, to supply goods.

Bisaso says he supplied goods and by 2014 he was demanding sh5.27b from the defendants.

“Since 2013, the defendants adamantly ignored to do their contractual obligation of paying for the goods supplied,” he states.

Agreement

Bisaso says in September 2016, the couple drafted an agreement to pay the outstanding debt for the supply of goods but only paid sh270m, leaving a balance of sh5b.

“The defendants still continue to ignore/abandon the agreement to pay me the money,” he purports.

An agreement to pay outstanding debt due for the supply of goods seen by the New Vision shows that the debtors (defendants) shall pay the creditor (Bisaso) sh270m, within 60 days as first installment from the date of agreement.

Pr. Ssenyonga was also expected to pay sh2b within six months from the date of the agreement.

Subsequent to the payment, a grace period of 30 days was permitted.