A Ugandan immigration lawyer based in the UK, Peter Ziruntusa, has lost his bid to recover over Shs422 million ($106,000 USD) from his romantic partner, Resty Meribel Mbabazi, and three others.
The other three are ;Desire Mwesigwa Lutabaire, Johnson Asaba Byaruhanga aka Faisal Waissa and Jackson Musitwa Mugwanya.
Justice Musa Ssekaana dismissed the case, citing lack of evidence to support Ziruntusa’s claims.
Ziruntusa had alleged that he entered into an oral investment agreement with Mbabazi in 2016, after meeting her on Facebook in 2015. He claimed to have sent over 300 million shillings to Mbabazi between 2016 and 2019, but was unhappy with the audit report which led to instituting of a criminal case against the four.
However, Mbabazi countered that Ziruntusa’s advances were romantic, not commercial. She stated that he had expressed interest in a romantic relationship, and later supported her philanthropic activities and plans to establish a clinic.
The court ruled that unmarried couples have no right to recover money contributed to the relationship unless it’s jointly owned or registered. Justice Ssekaana also noted that Ziruntusa failed to define his relationship with Mbabazi and had relatives in Uganda who could have overseen his investments.
The ruling highlights the complexities of romantic relationships and business investments, emphasizing the importance of clear agreements and definitions. Justice Ssekaana emphasized that in cases of concubinage or meretricious cohabitation, neither party has the right to seek compensation for services provided or contributions made.
“Ziruntusa has failed to prove his claims for recovery of the money sent to Mbabazi under unclear circumstances. Unmarried or cohabitants have no right to recovery of money made or contributed in such a relationship unless it is jointly owned by registration or joint bank account or such other ownership which infers clear joint ownership,” the judge ruled.
Mbabazi’s defense revealed that Ziruntusa misrepresented himself as a passionate immigration lawyer interested in protecting vulnerable children. He used this narrative to support her philanthropic activities and gain her trust.
In this case, the judge ruled that Ziruntusa’s failure to establish a clear commercial relationship and define his investment terms led to the loss of his substantial investment.
“There was no consideration for the alleged oral contract between the plaintiff and the 1st defendant which is quite unbelievable and inconsistent with the evidence on record. The relationship between the plaintiff and the 1st defendant was not a commercial one but rather a romantic or sexual relationship which ought not to be converted into a contract or trust,” Ssekaana ruled.
The ruling upholds the principle that romantic relationships do not automatically imply commercial partnerships.
